Tentative water quality control policy, Gila River system in Arizona

STATE OF ARI- ZONA
WATER QUALITY CONTROL COUNCIL
Tentative
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
GILA RIVER SYSTEM IN ARIZONA
I'HR,£ f~ NENT FILE COpy
,-,.: A c~ (;; a - Y' / ~
...~;
RECEIVED
JUN 14 1967
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
FORE~ JORD
The purpose of this policy statement, in addition to the
obvious purpose of endeavoring to preserve and enhance the
quality of the Gila River System water, is to formulate and
adopt a water quality control policy document for Arizona
as required under the following State and Federal Acts:
I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
2. Arizona Revised Statutues, Chapter 16, Article I.
\ Jhile these statutes are essentially designed towards the
same endeavor, terms and definitions used therein may differ
somewhat. Specifically, the water quality criteria and im­plementationand
enforcement elanscalledfor- fnthe Federa'l
Act--' are-- presen- EecTln- thls pol icy document ast:{ aters Contro Il~ Q,
'- later Quality Objectives, Neasures to Achieve \ later Quality
DblectT, ves -~- andTmp lement atlon- 0 f Ob jec.! Jv~~,:-,-, fIle-' supportl ng
data required by the Federal Act is supplied in Description of
~~~~. and Find i ngs, Be~~ f.!.£!~ l.... lV~~~~,_~,~~? ,. ~ o_~, e._~ r:~!~_ C t~~-;- and
Ra tiona Ie f9..!:... \- Ja t~..:._ QuaL!., tY.. Ebj ect i ves.
Although the Gila River System is essentially isolated from
the Colorado River System by river control and diversion for
beneficial consumptive use, the Gila River System is still
within the Colorado River Basin. The Guidelines for Formulat­L~
g_,~ 1~! f;!'_ Ql: I~ lLtr..~~ a n~ c!~, rd s for~~ lJJ.!~!:..~ t.@!.~ Wat~ i- s- or'the­Colorad~~
jy~~_ Syste~ ( appended to the Colorado River Pol icy
Document) are therefore followed in this policy where applic­able.
lfflli OOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTy • } ' l(' 00
1 0' THa ~ UMB£" ' J.. ) CJ'..,;
DEPARTMENT OF
UBRAHYANPARCHIVES RIC~ IV£ D ~ \ M _... i
- ARIZONA - APR t:. '; j1. U I
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
for
GILA RIVER SYSTEM
1- 0 WATERS CONTROLLED
~ This Water Qual ity Control Pol icy appl ies to the waters of the Gila River System
in Arizona. The Gila River System drainage area is shown on Plate 1. A schematic
of the system is shown on Plate 2.
1- 2 Interstate Waters of the Gila R~ ver ? y~ tem: The following streams are inter­state
streams for purposes of the Water Qua) ity Act of 1965:
a. Qila-. Blver - T:- ie Gil", River enters Arizona frcr: J New I>! exico, and remains
an interstate stream until completely diverted for beneficial use at
Ashurst- Hayden Damn The portion of the river from this dam to its
confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma is essentially a dry wash,
and stream standards are meaningless.
b. San Francisco R: vei - The San Francisco River starts in Arizona, flows
through New Mexico and back Into Ar! zona. It is an interstate stream
throughout its course.
c& San Simon River - The San Simon River is technically an interstate
stream because of minor intermittent flows from New Mexico.
d. San Pedro River - The head. mters of the San Pedro
and the river is technically an Jnterstate stream
is very erratic with some completely dry periods.
flow data is shown in Exhibit 1.
River are in Mexico,
although the flow
USGS Station 4705
e. Santa Cruz River - The headwaters of the Santa Cruz River are in
ArIzona, but the river flows through a portion of Mexico before re­entering
Arizona on its way to join the Gila River, and is therefore
an interstate stream. Flow, as seen in USGS Stations 4800, 4805,
4820 and 4890, Exhibit 1, Is very erratic, and the river is dry
throughout most of its course.
1- 3 Illtrastate Waters of the Gila Rive!__ System: The following streams are intra­state
streams for purposes of the Water Qual ity Act of 1965 since they do not con­tribute
any sustained flow across any Arizona border:
a. £ pg1e Creek
b. San Carlos River
c. Mineral Creek
d. Queen Creek
e. Salt River
f. Verde River
g. New River
h. ~ gua Fria River
i. Hassayampa RIver
j. Centennial Wash
k. Miscellaneous creeks and washes which contribute minor amounts of
intermittent flow to the GIla River or its major tributaries.
- 1-
I
I
I I:- ------ ---
- - - GI LA RIVER SYSTEM DRA I NAGE AREA
;- Ex i sti ng Dam
- if- Proposed Dam
PLATE I
GILA RIVER SYSTEM
UTAH I
- -- ARIZONA- -- --------- t
. I I
I
I I I
. I ~ l
/,./ 1
.' I I
I Y
GJ
r >
1J : JJ
< r [ Tl
: JJ » ( f)
-<
(-- f1) - I
[ Tl
: 5: f11 ( f)
0 : r:
[ Tl
: 5: » N
-- 1 -
0
0<
Z 0 o U
N ­-
X
0:: w
0< ~
I
II
-- 11-,--
--~
Dam
MEXICO
Morelos Dam
ARIZONA
,
~ I:~
-. Jx
o< w
U:: 2:
4420)[ 70,840J
4485)[ 180,700J
Laveen( 4795)[ 203J
Santa Cruz R.
4890)[ 939J
aU)
co Q) I
Tucsoro :: ro I
( 4825)[ 935 ~' i
Gil! esp i eDam Gil a Bend i rr i g.
5195)[ 804J { i2,906J
Painted Rock Dam
( 5198)[ 882J
Dome( 5205)[ 279J
4585)[ 118,900J
Calva( 4665)[ 90,960J
San Carlos Res. ( 4690)[- 34,830J
Coo I i dge Dam
4695)[ 122,000J
San Pedro R. ( 4710)[ 16 140
4734)[ 16,240J
San Simon R. ( 4570)[ 7
Buttes Damsite
Ashurst- Hayden
( 4750) ...--------.
[ 134,400
Virden( 4320)[ 96,290J
[ 18,840J Duncan- Virden - - - - Valley ( 4325)
San Carlos R.
( 4685)[ 24,550_
Imperial Dam
Saffor
Va II ey
( 4490)
[ 104,738J
I
I
I
P~ oenix
-) t
L __ · 3
Hassayampa R.
' 5155)[ 22,050J
ARIZ NA
CALIFORNiA
Glenwood( 4440)[ 41,010J
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
New
Salt River
Frla R.
SALT RIVER
VALLEY USE
See Plate
Granite
Wadde I I Dam
( 5135)[+ 45,840J
rado River
rlr------
a Roosevelt
g Horse Mesa
~ g Mormon Flat
~ ~ Stewart Mountain Dam
~ LJ ( 5020) [ 203,200
( 51 I 3) 625 600
Verde River
1
\.--+-.,....;~ 4; t,:; 4u5~ 01. J) J.[~ 6~,. 2... L9~ 0l. LJ.. J,;: I.""~ S;;..:; a:.:. n;....:.. F..:.. r.::: a..!.: n.::: c..:.. i ;;;:. sc::::. o:::.....:..:.:.-~~~. J..,;;;..:... L.:::...!..::::. r-+ l
4905)[ 336,000J
4940)[ 192, IOOJ
WATER YEAR
Legend
1965
~~~ rseshoe
l!"\ ..
g = Bartlett
U"\+
~ U
White
( 4320) USGS Gage Station
( 9- before each no.)
[ 279]- Flow at Station
Acre- feet/ year
-+- Existing Dam
~ Proposed Dam
2- 0 DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND FINDINGS
2- 1 The Main Stem of the Gila River: The gross watershed of the Gila River
Syst'em- upst- reamofDome~ Arizo;; a- Cf2-' inilesupstream of the confluence with the
Colorado River} is approximately 57,477 square miles, excluding all closed basins
upstream. The main stem of the Gila River upstream of the last U. S. Geological
Survey gaging station in New Mexico near Virden ( 16 miles upstream of the New
Mexico- Arizona border) has a drainage area of 3,203 square miles. There are no
major control structures on the Gila River in New Mexico, although Hooker Dam has
been proposed. The watershed of the Gila River System in Arizona is shown in
Plate I.
The Gila River enters Arizona near Duncan, flows through Duncan Valley, is joined
by the San Francisco River near Clifton, and flows westward through Safford Valley
to the San Carlos Reservoir behind Cool idge Dam, the first major control structure
on the river. Vater released from Coolidge Dam flows westward through remote
mountain country until it reaches the San Pedro Valley where the San Pedro River
joins the Gila River. The combined rivers flow through more remote mountains past
the Buttes Damsite to Ashurst- Hayden Dam near Florence.
All of the water reaching Ashurst- Hayden Dam, with the exception of rare flood
flows, are diverted for beneficial use in the San Carlos Project. Sluicing of
the heavy sediment load at Ashurst- Hayden Dam has been replaced by mechanical
sediment removal equipment, so there is essentially no flow in the Gila River
below this dam. All of the water in the Gila River above Ashurst- Hayden Dam is
apportioned under the Globe Equity rIo. 59 Decree of June 29, 1935 ( 10). The pro­visions
of that Decree are enforced by the Gila Water Commissioner appointed by
the Arizona District Court of the United States.
The Gila River below Ashurst- Hayden Dam is situated in an arid desert area. In­tense
desert storms contribute some flow to the Gila River at infrequent intervals
for short periods of time. There are small diversion dams near Olbera ( Sacaton
Diversion Dam) and Gila Crossing before the Salt River joins the Gila- River near
Avondale. Annual flow data for Water Year 1965 at various points on the Gila
River are shown on Plate 2.
The Salt River System contributes very little water to the Gila River because of
upstream use. This facet is discussed in Section 2- 2 under tributaries to the
Gil a Rive r.
Almost all of the water which accumulates in the Gila River below Ashurst- Hayden
Dam is again diverted at Gillespie Dam for irrigation. Except for storm flows
and gate leakage at the dam, there is no surface flow between Gillespie Dam and
Painted Rock Dam approximately 60 miles downstream. Painted Rock Dam was com­pleted
in 1959 as a flood control dam to protect the Yuma area from flash floods
following intense desert rainstorms.
Below Painted Rock Dam, the Gila River channel is dry except for occasional storm
flows. Irrigation drainage water from the Wellton- Mohawk Valley has contributed
some flow at Dome ( 12 miles upstream from the confluence of the Gila River with
the Colorado River) in the past, but the new drainage system completed in 1961 has
steadily decreased the contribution.
- 2-
In addition to the annual flow data for Water Year 1965 presented in Plate 2, flow
data at various points in the Gila River System is given in Exhibit I.
2- 2 Tributaries to the Gila River: There are numerous tributaries to the Gila
R:" Tver" in the 508 river miles between the New Mexico- Arizona boundary and the
confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma. Flow data for the major tribu­taries
is given for t. Jater Year 1965 on Plate 2, and expanded flow data is pre­sented
in Exhibit I. Descriptions of the significant tributaries are as follows:
a. San Francisco River - The San Francisco River has its headwaters in
Arizona near Alpine. It flows eas~ ward through Luna Lake into New
Mexico and back into Arizona northeast of Clifton. The gross drain-age
area of the San Francisco River above the last gaging station near
Clifton ( 9.9 miles upstream from mouth) is 2,766 square miles. The salt
load of the San Francisco River varies with the flow rate. Available
data shows the TDS ( Total Dissolved Sol ids) load ranges from 200 to
1200 mg/ l. Diversions are made for mining, municipal and irrigation use
upstream of the confluence with the Gila River. The Clifton Hot Springs
is a source of salt which degrades the water quality of the river.
b. Eagle Creek - Eagle Creek drains a 377 square mile area on the north
side'- of the Gila River. In addition, water is pumped into Eagle Creek
from the Black River in the Salt River watershed. A large portion of the
water flowing in Eagle Creek is diverted by pumping for industrial and
municipal use in and near Morenci and Clifton. The water is of excellent
quality.
c. San Simon River - The San Simon River drains a 2,192 square mile area in
the San Simon Valley. There are some minor intermittent flows from New
Mexico into the valley. The San Simon River joins the Gila River between
Solomon and Safford. There is very little rainfall in this drainage
basin, and the river usually flows only during storm periods, and
available data shows a TDS load of 500 to 900 mg/ I in the flood water.
The sediment load is also high. Flood flows are partly regulated by six
flood control detention structures.
d. San Carlos River - The San Carlos River drains a 1,027 square mile area
northerS- anCar! os Reservoi r. Although the 36- year average discharge
of this tributary is 32,070 acre- feet per year, there are periods of no
flow each year. The meager data on quality indicates fair quality during
high flows to poor quality during low flows.
e. San Pedro River - The San Pedro River drains an area of 4,449 square
mile'S: of which 696 sqt.< are miles are in Mexico. The first gaging station
in Arizona is near PaJominas, approximately 4.5 miles from the Arizona­Mexico
border. The total flow at this point has averaged 21,000 acre­°
feetot 2p2e, r00y0eacrufboicr tfheeet 2p3e- yr esaercornedcor( dc, fsb). ut Dthievefrlsoiwonsraatebovheas Cvhaarrileedstofrno, m
where a dam is proposed as a part of the Central Arizona Project, are
mostly by groundwater pumping. Downstream of Charleston, surface flow
decreases. Diversions, both by surface flow and groundwater pumping, are
made for irrigation, domestic and industrial use. The San Pedro River
Joins the Gila River near Winkelman. Quality records on the San Pedro
- 3-
River are poor. Records of qual ity on the Gila River at Kelvin, 17
miles downstream of the confluence Is the best Index available.
f. Mineral Creek - Mineral Creek drains approximately 98 square miles of
area north of the Gila River at Kelvin. This creek was named Mineral
Creek in 1846 by a military scouting party because of its sal ine
qual ities and brown color. The flow varies from zero to approximately
30,000 cfs. There is one flood control structure which has silted up
and Is no longer effective. Another structure is being considered. A
large open pit copper mine is situated on this creek, and the natural
channel is being replaced to allow for mine expansion. Quality of the
water in this creek is discussed under potential sources of pollution.
g_ Queen Creek - Queen Creek drains a desert foothills area north of the
Gila River, and flow 15 restricted to periods of heavy rainfall, usually
during the summer and fall. The flow is controlled by Whitlow Dam, and
it is doubtful if any surface flow would ever reach the Gila River.
h. Santa Cruz River - The Santa Cruz River drains 8,581 square miles before
it reaches the Gila River near Laveen. There is a 348 square mile drain­age
area in Mexico. The 23- year record shows an average annual flow at
the mouth of 14,550 acre- feet, with nCl flow at all for the majority of
the time. There was a measured flow during 54 days of the 1965 water
year, and 6~' of the flow occurred during 3 days. There are many
diversions, mostly by groundwater pumping, for Irrigation, municipal and
industrial use.
i. Salt River System- The Salt River System physically joins the Gila River
~ ystem west of Laveen. The Salt River ' System includes the Salt and
Verde Rivers and their tributaries. The Salt and Verde River flow is
controlled by dams except for periods of extreme flooding ( the capacity
has been exceeded only twice since 1941), and essentially all of the
flow is diverted for irrigation, municipal and industrial use at Granite
Reef Diversion Dam east of Phoenix. The Salt River Valley area, Includ­ing
parts of the water distribution system, is shown on Plate 3. There
are 13,000 square miles of drainage area above Granite Reef Dam. The
water in the Salt River System is adjudicated under the Kent Decree ( II).
There is very little contribution of surface water to the Gila River
System by the Salt River System. Irrigation return flow, mostly excess
diversion, is utilized in the immediate area. There Is considerable
groundwater pumping In the area. There is a sewage effluent flow to the
Salt River from Phoenix, and complete reclamation of this sewage
effluent for reuse Is being studied.
J. ~ gua Frla River - The Agua Fria River drains an area of 1,459 square
miles upstream of Waddell Dam. All of the water is diverted for irrIga­tion
use by the Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District
No. I before it reaches the Gila River. The average flow for the 37- year
record period Is 59,440 acre- feet per year.
- 4-
- 5-
Pumping of groundwater began in the 1920' 5 and became widespread throughout the
basin by about 1940.
1. Centennia, l \~.'!?_~ - Centennial Wash joins the Gila River just upstream of
Gillespie Dam. Flow consists of storm runoff, and the record is extremely
poor.
small tributaries to the
It is beyond the scope of
Any problems caused by
of pollution.
Miscellaneous TrLbu~ aries - There are numerous
Gila River, most of them intermittent in flow.
this policy document to discuss each of them.
these tributaries are discussed under sources
m.
k. Hassayampa River - The Hassayampa River drains an area of 1,470 square
miles before it reaches the Gila River upstream of Gillespie Dam. The
average flow for the 19- year record at Box Damsite near Wickenburg is
7,820 acre- feet per year, with many periods of no flow. There are
diversions for irrigation and mining operations along the river. The
river below Wickenburg is alternately wet and dry, and most diversions
are by groundwater pumping. Flow records at the confluence with the
Gila River are very poor, but the total flow in the Gila as measured at
Gillespie Dam indicates negligible contribution from the Hassayampa.
2- 3 HistorY, of the_ 911.. E,.- Rl~ er,~~ 2. lD.: Part of the area of the Gila River Basin was
ceded to the United States in 1848 after the Mexican War and the southern areJ was
included in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. In 1870, valuable mineral deposits were
found in the area of Cl if ton, and this area is now one of the most important copper
producing areas in the United States.
The first irrigation of the land in the basin above the Coolidge Dam area was begun
about 1872 by Mexican immigrants and Mormon pioneers in the Safford Valley, and ir­rigation
in the Duncan- Virden Valley followed shortly. Below the Cool idge Dam
area, early development centered around agriculture. The Hohokam Indians irrigJted
lands more than a thousand years ago. This civilization vanished. Irrigation
practIces were resumed in the lower Gila and Salt River valleys by subsequent
Indian inhabitants at dates unknown and by non- Indian settlers in the 1860' s.
Varying flows made irrigated agriculture a very risky affair, and storage systems
were planned. Picacho Reservoir was built for irrigation storage water in 1890.
The Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 paved the way for construction of many more
storage dams for irrigation water. The Salt River Valley Water Users' Association,
the first organization of its kind formed to take advantage of the act, was incor­porated
in 1903. Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River was begun in 1905 and completed
in 1911. More dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers followed. Cool idge Dam on the
Gila River was completed in 1928 by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Gillespie Dam
on the Gila River was completed as a private venture in 1921 to irrigate 10,000
acres in the Gila Bend and Theba Areas, but this area has suffered from a shortage
of water. The remainder of the Gila River Valley has sparse irrigation except for
the area around Wellton and Yuma served with Colorado River water.
The surface storage system was developed primarily for agriculture, but domestic
and industrial needs are now also supplied. The use of water in Arizona, espe­cially
surface water, is covered by legal water rights. Expanding population and
changes from a strictly agricultural and mining economy have caused many water prob­lems.
~:- 4 MajorQ. lver~ L~~?.. Jro~.-!. he G~ ive!"_..?. · ( stem: As described in 2- 1, all of the
water in the mainstream Gila River, from a point ten miles upstream from the east­ern
boundary of Arizona to the Gila Crossing ( near the confluence of the Salt and
Gila Rivers), is allocated under the Globe Equity Decree. The San Pedro River
water has not been adjudicated. There are numerous withdrawals of water from these
rivers upstream of Ashurst- Hayden Dam both by surface diversion and by pumping
by groundwater. The Globe Equity Decree provided for irrigation diversions of
1/ 80 of a cubic foot per second per acre of land, with a total of 6 acre- feet for
each acre annually. The following are the major diversions from the Gila River:
a. Q!:! fl.£.@.~-:- Jli1:: de..! 2. ValJ,~ - The decreed area for' irrigation in this valley in
both New Mexico and Arizona is 8,061 acres. 8etween 8,000 and 20,000
acre- feet per year has been diverted during the past five years, and the
additional water required has been pumped from the groundwater. Almost
all of the return flow to the river is subsurface.
b. Safford V~ 8y - The decreed area for irrigation in the Safford Valley is
32,512 acres. Water is diverted through thirteen canal systems, and
supplemental water is diverted by pumping, both from the river and from
the groundwater. The diversion from the river during the last five years
has varied from 39,630 to 104,700 acre- feet per year depending on the
river yield. Most domestic water is suppl ied by pumping from the ground­water.
c. ~,~ r~~ rlo~_ Proj~ ct_- The decreed area for irrigation in this project is
100,546 acres. There are two sections to this project-- the ! Ilndian
Lands" and the "\-/ hite Lands! l as given in the Gila Equity Decree. The
acreage is approximately equal. Surface, flow is supplemented by pumping
from the groundwater. The diversion from the river has ranged from
42,450 to 247,820 acre- feet per year during the past five years. There
is some storage on the project in the Picacho Reservoir. Domestic needs
in the area are served by pumping from the groundwater.
d. Miscellaneous Diversions - There are numerous diversions for irrigation,
domestic and industrial uses along the river. These uses are covered in
the Gila Equity Decree.
2-, 5 Econ_ omy an, d N~ tu!:.~_ J .... Reso~!::£. C:?_ C? f t~~._.~_ U a.._.~ L.\ f~ E.,.,,?,' y_~_~ em: The economy of the
entire area of the Gila ~ iver System is limited by the water supply. The economy
and natural resources discussed in Section 2- 8 of the Colorado River Water Qual ity
Control Policy appl ies equally to the Gila River System, and will not be repeated
except to emphasize that the Central Arizona Project is vitally needed to sustain
the economy and preserve the qual ity of the water now available.
2- 6 \ Jater Qual. llLf2. nsi5! erations: TilE QUALITY AND QUANTITY FACTORS OF THE WATER
SUPPLY OF THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM ARE SO INTER- RELATED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
SEPARATE THESE PARAMETERS. The flow data on the main stem of the Gila River and
its tributaries for the 1965 Water Year is shown schematically on Plate 2 and
expanded for other years in Exhibit I to illustrate the variable flow parameters.
The variable flow in the Gila River is due mainly to storm runoff which carries a
considerable silt load. Flow from the Gila River is first controlled at the
- 6-
San Carlos Reservoir which acts as a silt control works. Water released from
Cool idge Dam is relatively clear, but inflow from the San Pedro River and other
tributaries is uncontrolled, and the silt load at Ashurst- Hayden Dam is again
appreciable, causing silt control problems in the San Carlos Project. The silt
load requires constant canal cleaning and prevents a canal I ining program vital
to water conservation. Buttes Dam, when authorized and built, will reduce the
silt load in the canals so that a 1ining program wi II be feasible.
The variable flow rates also contribute to the sal inity problem. In general, the
salt concentration increases as the flow decreases, but the watersheds of different
tributaries contribute different quantities and types of salts. To illustrate, the
Total Dissolved Sol ids ( TDS) and sodium concentrations in the Gila River water
at Kelvin are plot: ed against flow rate in Plate 4 for the 1962 to 1964 period.
The different pattern of the data for the total salt content and single ion content
illustrates the effect of different watersheds on the qual ity of water.
The TDS content of the water entering Arizona in both the Gila and San Francisco
Rivers historically varies between 200 and 500 mgtl. The fluoride content has
been consistently high, normally above one ( I) mgtl even in periods of high
flooding ( 6). The fluoride content of many of the groundwaters of the entire Gila
River Basin is high, probably due to redeposition of these salts washed downstream
from the upper basin. The groundwater in the Duncan- Virden Valley varies from
very low to over 5000 mgtl of dissolved salts, and some salt load is added to the
Gila River water before it is joined by the San Francisco River.
The CI if ton- Morenci area contributes considerable salt to the San Francisco River,
some from solution pick- up from the saline soils and some from the highly miner­al
ized hot springs. Long term continuous data on qual ity is not available for
this area.
Downstream of the confluence of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers, the tributaries
contain varying salt loads. Eagle and Bonita Creek water contains about 300 mgtl
of salts. The San Simon River contributes water with a TDS of 500- 900 mgtl during
flood stage. There are some artesian flo~ JS in the Safford Valley which contribute
a variety of salts to the Gila River flow. The groundwater in the Safford Valley
is generally highly mineral ized.
The San Carlos Reservoir acts somewhat as an equal izing reservoir for the salt
content of the Gila River water, but downstream flow is again influenced by hot
springs and runoff from other watersheds as seen in Plate 4. By the time the
water reaches Kelvin, the TDS load varies between 400 and 2000 mg/ l. Generally
speaking, the TDS load is below 1000 mgtl if the flow remains above 200 cubic feet
per second.
Very little quality data exists for flows below Kelvin. Except for occasional
flood flows, all of the water reaching Ashurst- Hayden Dam ( 19.5 miles below Kelvin)
is diverted for use in the San Carlos Project, and there is no return flow to the
river as a surface stream. The proposed Buttes Dam, in addition to its function
as a silt control structure, would contain the flood flows which enter the Gila
below Coolidge Dam, particularly from the San Pedro River. There is considerable
groundwater pumping in the area, and the Central Arizona Project is needed in this
area for supplemental water and quality control.
- 7-
o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0
1'\ 7 III
000
000
000
1'\ 7 III
oo
o
N
oo
o
N
ooo
ooo
o 0 0 o 0 0
1'\ "'!" III
o 0 0 o 0 0
f'Il 7 III
o
o
N
oo
N
PLATE 4
o
o
oo
SALT CONTENT VARIATION WITH FLOW
1962- 1964
GILA RIVER AT KELVIN
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
o 0 0
1'\ "'!" III
o 0 0
1'\ 7 III
•
l- · · • •
l- .. • • · . · • · · l- . • . · · · • • '.
•• • ...•. • .'.....•.. · · • · · · . . • . . • . • . · · . · · · . .•. .. . . . ·
· . . · • . ·
• .. .
l- • -
. . ·
I • • I •• I I I I . • • .
u • • . .
0
0
0 . •• .• . · • ••• ., • · . · · • . • · • .... · • ...• · . . '. . · .. . . - · . ..... • · ~ · · · • · • · ~ . • · .. .'. . . 0 • . 0 .
· . . • J' . . ~ . · .
0
I I I • I I I I I I .
o
o
w
>
... J o
( f)
( f) 500
... J 400
<>.::
f-
~ .300
L
Q)
+-
200
300
30
500
400
. co z
( f) o
... J
~ I 000
~ OO
E
~ 300
+-
200
o
N
500
400
20
o
N
::: 2." 50
::>
oo 40
( f)
......... 100 en
E
The Salt River System waters vary in qual ity, but not quite as drastically as the
Gila River and its other tributaries. The extensive reservoir systems on the
Salt and Verde Rivers tend to equalize the extremely high and low salt waters.
The TDS of the Salt River below Stewart Nountain Dam has varied from 361 to 1300
mg/ l during the period of 1950 to 1964. The TDS of the Verde River below Bartlett
Dam has varied from 158 to 550 mg/ I during the same period. The quality of water
del ivered to the users in the Salt River Valley depends on how much water is
available from each of the rivers. The ratio varies from year to year as seen in
Exhibit I for Stations 5020 and 5100.
The surface flow of the Salt River System is not sufficient to satisfy the needs
of the Salt River Valley, and there is considerable groundwater pumping. The
amount pumped in the valley greatly exceeds the annual recharge. In addition,
the groundwater is quite saline in most areas. The Central Arizona Project is
desperately needed in this area to allow for water importation. Such importation
would help with respect to both the qual ity and quantity.
The next surface flow in the Gila River is at Gillespie Dam. The TDS load at this
point averages 5,000 to 6,000 mg/ l. This water is diverted for irrigation purposes.
The water usually has a fluoride concentration of 2 to 4 mg/ l.
With the meager amount of qual ity data available in the Gila River System, it is
difficult to isolate any single source of gross degradation of the water. It
appears that much of the degradation is the result of natural sources of sal inity.
Occasional floodwaters and some drain3ge water from agricultural faci Iities reach
the Colorado River near Yuma. The drainage water is now almost completely con­tained
in the concrete lined drainage channel of t, he Wellton- Mohawk Irrigation
and Drainage District. The effect of this drain is seen in the data for U. S. G. S.
Station 5205 ( Dome, Arizona) in Exhibit 1. The flow in the Gila River has de­creased
to less tItan an acre- foot per day since water year 1963. The subject of
salinity below this point of the Gila River is discussed in the Colorado River
Policy Document. It should be pointed out, however, that rate of floodwater re­lease
from Painted Rock Dam can drastically effect the salinity problem in the
lower Gila and Colorado Rivers. Floodwater has been released only once since
completion of the dam in 1959.
- 8-
3- 0 BENEFICIAL WATER USES TO BE PROTECTED
--"'~-"'-"-'-----'-------"-'- ...._-~ -_._.._...
3- 1 General: All surface waters from significant sources in Arizona are subject
to the appropriative rights doctrine. There are no Riparian water rights in
Arizona. The following beneficial water uses are required of waters of the Gila
River System, and the tabulation is not intended to designate order of importance
or rights to such use.
2~ 2 Agricultural: Waters of the entire Gila River System are used for irrigation.
Boron content from natural sources limits the use on some crops. In some cases,
the TDS and Sodium percentage also 1imit crop use.
3- 3 Raw Domestic Water: High fluoride content from natural sources restricts the
useOT" the - GilaRiveras a domestic water source jf alternate sources are avail­abie.
There is some use of surface water of the Gila River 3S a raw domestic
source. Use of the water has resulted in mottled teeth in children, and an alter­nate
source of water is recommended.
The water diverted at Ashurst- Hayden Dam is used for irrigatiun purposes. Domes­tic
w5ter in the San Carlos Project area comes fiom grou;: dwater sources.
Surface water of the Salt River System is extensively used as a raw domestic
source for the metropolitan Phoenix area.
There is negligible direct use of surface water as a raw domestic source below
the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers~
On most of the other tributary streams, the surface flow is so undependable and
variable in quality that domestic wClf'er is supplied from groundwater. Future
supplies in certain areas are dependent upon importation fro~ outside sources.
3- 4 Industrial: Waters are diverted all along the flowing streams for industrial
purposes- 5Uch- as mining, manufacturing and cooling water.
3- 5 Propagation of Fish a~ d Wildlife Resources: The Gila River System contains
a'c( uatlccln" aWTfanfe" resou~~ c- es"- Tri- iiiosi" of' the flowing streams. SIJCh resources
include production of organisms, both plant and animal, thdt contribute to the
food chain supporting a fish population, and populations of other animal life,
including water fowl and shore birds.
3- 6 Recreational: This includes fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, hunt­rng~
and- esthetTc enjoymen7.. Some of these uses are restricted in some areas due
to confl icting water rights and uses, but are generally avnilable in most areas
where flowing or stored water is available.
3- 7 Future Uses of Surface Water: Future consumpt i ve uses of surface water,
other tha- nthose- spec" lft" cailymentioned as allocated, are of necessity restricted
until a water importation project is authorized and built. It is prob<.. ble that
some uses will have to be replaced by a higher priority use under due process of
law with full recognition of legal water rights.
3- 8 Classification of \, fatersAccording to Use: It is difficult to isolate cer­ta
insect'i0nsofthe-" Gfla- RTver- system " 1O- raspecial purpuse because of the ex-
- 9-
tensive and varied use.
Water for domestic purposes is of prime importance throughout Arizona. Although
the appl ication of conventional water treatment including flocculation, coagula­tion,
filtration and disinfection to the surface waters of the Gila River System
will generally not provide a water meeting the recommended drinking water stan­dards
of the U. S. Public Health Service, such treatment does provide a water
meeting the mandatory requirements of the drinking water standards in a majority
of the cases. Fluoride, chloride, sulfate and TDS contents limit the use of
surface water in many cases.
3- 9 Enhancement of Water Quality of the Gila River System: One method of enhance-ment
of the'- water ' qual ityo{" t" he" GTla River System, in view of its complete con­sumptive
use, would be through importation of water. Control of natural sources
of salinity and discharge requirements for waste systems can be used to maintain
or improve the present quality of the water.
- 10-
4- 0 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
4- 1 General Water Quality Objectives:
( a) To provide the highest quality water practical for all beneficial
uses o
( b) To protect the public health.
( c) To preclude pollution of the Gila River and its tributaries.
4- 2 Bacteriological:
( a) The Gila River System shall remain bacteriologically safe for all
beneficial uses. Specifically, the arithmetic average of at least
five consecutive samples in a 30 day period shall not exceed 5000
col iforms per 100 ml or 20 fecal streptococci per 100 mi.
4- 3 Physical and Esthetic Objectives:
( a) The water shall be free from floating debris, oil, grease, scum,
or other carried or floating materials from other than natural
sources. Natural sources of these materials will be controlled
to the most practical extent.
( b) The streams shall be free from bottom deposits or sludge attrib­utable
to domestic or Industrial waste or other controllable
sources.
( c) The water shall be free from tastes or odors attributable to do­mestic
or industrial waste or other controllable sources.
( d) The water shall be free from materials . attributable to domestic
or industrial waste or other controllable sources that cause
detectable off- flavor in the flesh of fish.
( e) The turbidity and color of the water will be maintained at the
lowest practical values possible.
( f) Temperature changes in the water will be held to the lowest prac­tical
value commensurate with all beneficial uses of the stream.
4- 4 Chemical Characteristics: The following chemical characteristics shall apply
to Gila River System water:
( a) Constituents contributi. n9,. to_~~.!~ ity ~ n. 9..__~~..!.~ crea~.~ ... J. n sodium
percentage.
Degradation of water quality will result from Increased intensity
of beneficial usage of water within the Gila River System. Mini­mization
of this degradation without unreasonably restricting any
beneflcts) use is mandatory.
The wide variation In sal inity content and distribution of salts
of the Gila River System, as Illustrated on Plate 4, precludes the
setting of numerical standards on the stream for various sal inlty
parameters. Control of these parameters must be achieved through
dIscharge requirements on return flows, allowing reasonable degra-
- 11-
dation in quality for legal beneficial use. All identifiable sources
of salinity increase in the Gila River System will be managed and
controlled to the degree reasonably practicable with available tech­nology.
This subject is covered in the Implementation Section.
( b) Heavy Metals and Associated Chemicals:
The general objective is the minimization of toxicants in the river
water. Wastes, from municipal, industrial, or other controllable
sources, containing heavy metals or associated chemicals shall not
be discharged into the rivers in amounts such that their cumulative
effects may interfere with any beneficial use. In all cases, the
concentration of these heavy metals and associated chemicals shall
be the minimum concentrations which are physically and economically
feasible to achieve, regardless of the dilution capacity of the
stream at the point of discharge.
( c) Biocides:
Biocide concentrations in Gila River System water shall be kept be­low
levels which are deleterious to human, animal, plant or aquatic
I ife, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use
of the water.
( d) Radioactivity:
Radioactive materials attributable to municipal, industrial or other
controllable sources shall be minimum concentrations which are physi­cally
and economically feasible to achieve. The cumulative effects
of these materials will be recognized in discharge requirements. In
no case shall such materials exceed the I imits established in the
1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards or 1/ 10 of the
168- hr. values for other radioactive substances specified in National
Bureau of Standards Handbook 69.
( e) Dissolved Oxygen:
The discharge of wastes that lower the dissolved oxygen content belm · /
6 mgll is prohibited where the receiving body of water is a sports
fishery. In no case will the discharge of wastes that lower the
dissolved oxygen content to zerO be permitted.
( f) pH
The pH of Gila River System water shall remain within the limits of
6.5 and 8.6 at all times.
( g) Other Chemical Characteristics:
The general objective is the minimization of miscellaneous chemicals
that may interfere with any beneficial use of the water. These in-clude
but are not I imited to methylene blue anionic surfactants, fluoride,
boron, nitrate, phosphate, ammonia and phenols.
- 12-
5- 0 MEASURES TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ,---,- -" '-"----
5- 1 General: Although the water qual ity indicators under consideration are numer­ous,
they may effectively be grouped in the consideration of contributory sources
and of achievement measures. In the selection of measures to achieve a particular
qual ity objective, consideration must be given to the economic and social effects
which may result therefrom. In the dIscussions below, the indicators are grouped
into the categories contaIned under the Water Qual ity Objectives ( Section 4- 0).
5- 2 Bacterlolo~~ l: The objective is that waters shall remain bacteriologically
safe for all beneficial uses. This objective Is oriented partIcularly towards
protection of persons engaged in water- contact sports, since raw domestic water
withdrawn from the Gila River receives treatment before del ivery to individual
users& The contrIbutory sources of pathogens are disposals of sanitary wastes
from communities, from prIvate establishments, and from boatsc
The necessity for water conservation in the Southwest dictates that beneficial
reuse of sewage effluents should be encourgaged o This objective will be met by
establishment of effluent discharge requirements on sanitary wastes from private
and community sewage systems, organic processing plants, recreational facilitIes,
and boats. Secondary treatment of sewage is mandatory before discharge to any
stream or dry wash. Tertiary treatment and/ or chlorination is required in cer­tain
cases. There are no known combined sanitary sewers and storm drains in
Arizona, and such facilities will not be allowed.
Decaying vegetable matter can cause some esthetic problems, and every effort
should be made to reduce the amountof nutrients causing excess vegetation in
the river.
Livestock feeding operations are conducted at several locations in the Gila
River drainage area. In order to prevent pollution of surface waters by live­stock,
the following measures will be enforced:
a e Livestock, other than those which are grazing or pasturing, shall
not enter or inhabit waters In the drainage systeme
b. Livestock which are corralled In the proximate area of the Gila
River or its tributaries shall be effectively excluded from entry
into the waters.
c. Adequate permanent type measures shall be taken to assure that
sewage from livestock other than from grazing or pasturing, shall
not enter the Gila or Its tributaries without approved treatment.
5- 3 Phy sica1:
a e Temperature: Industrial wastes, cooling water for power plants
and river control operations might reasonably be expected to
cause temperature rise in rIver waters. River control Is a
necessary item to which temperature control must be subordinated.
- 13-
Since the number of industrial and power plants along the river
are few, these should be considered on an individual basis for
necessary control by discharge requirements.
b. FI oat i n9 Debri s, 9iJ. L.. Qre § l~~,~ C~ Il1L. et~: These i nd icators are
generally absent in the Gila River System. Future problems will
be prevented by discharge requirements.
c. Silt load: The silt load of the river has always been a problem,
but river control has been constantly reducing this parameter.
Construction of the planned dams in the Gila River System will
greatly reduce the silt load. Watershed work and flood retention
structures being built on small tributaries will continue to re­duce
the load. Silt loadings due to man- made facil ities will be
subj ect to abatement.
5: 4 Chemical Characteristics: Future development in New Mexico will increase the
salt load of the Gila- ancfSa'n Francisco Rivers entering Arizona, or decrease the
flow available for dilution. Such facts should be considered in federal legis­lation
concerning the Central Arizona Project and the Hooker Dam Project in New
Mexico. In view of the extensive present use of the Gila River System and future
requirements to be placed on the system, the following measures will be used to
protect the chemical qual ity of the surface water system:
a. Sal inity and.~~~~.!! l...~~ rc~~!:~ 9. § ': Measures to achieve the desired ob­jective
of minimizing degradation of the Gila River System surface
and groundwaters are as follows:
1.~~. tural ~ urces_..£ f sal L~}.! Y.-...!.. I1.. t~~~. il~_~ J'v.'~!_~!." aJD~ ge arE? § l:
There are numerous natural sources of sal inity in the drainage
area. The alluvial soils and rocks contain soluble salts.
Although this source 15 difficult to control, water management
and watershed manipulation may help reduce the effect of this
source in the future. Salt springs and salt beds in the vi­cinity
of rivers and creeks are being sought out and methods
of control studied ( 13), and more work must be done.
2. A.~ rtcult~ ral- 20~ ces_~ L.?~ linljy: An operational sal t balance
must be establ ished in all agricultural operations. In general
all of the salt entering the root zone of an agricultural project
must be removed if a sustained operation is to be possible. Fail­ure
to resolve this problem may have contributed to the destruct­ion
of great civil izations In the past, Including the Hohokam Indian
civil ization in the Salt River Valley of Arizona a few hundred
years ago. Essentially, with efficient irrigation practices, about
two- thirds of the water applied to crops is removed by transpiration
from the plants, use by the plants, and by evaporation from the
soil itself, concentrating all the salts originally present In the
remaining one- third of the water. This water must be drained away
to prevent salt damage to future crops. Thus, in normal ~ p~ rationsl
agrIcultural draInage water will have about three times the con­centration
of dissolved salts or TDS present In the applied
- 14-
water_ The higher the TOS content of available water 7 the greater
the concentration effect will be.
The TDS concentration of drainage water resulting from the leaching
of new lands can be higher than the concentration resulting from a
salt balance operation o The effect however~ diminishes rapidly.
The water tables in the Gila River System are generally quite Tow 7
and there is very I ittle return flow to the rivers by surface
drainage systems. Canal I ining, pipe installation 7 land levell ing,
phreatophyte removal, watershed improvement etc., are the currently
acceptable methods of water conservation which contribute to water
qual ity enhancement. Those projects which are intended to preserve
or increase the surface flew or qual ity of a stream must consider
the impact of the project on the recreation and wildl ife values in
the area. These programs should be continued, and new, practical
processes for reducing the sal inity of irrigation return flows
should be appl ied as they are developed.
Specific projects\\ rere improvement is necessary and appl icable
are presented in the Implementation Section.
3. Ind~ strial sourc, es O,!,_.,~~ JLr:' i_~: t.: There are a few sources of sal in­ityin
industrial operations in the Gila River drainage area. Most
of these can be held to a minimum by proper discharge requirements.
Current problems are discussed in the Implementation Section.
4. Municipal sources of sal inity: Salts are added to water used for
domestic purposes:-- Oomestic: sewage generally has a TDS increase
of about 300 mg/ l over the supply water. This increase can be
attributed to a number of factors such as but not I imi ted to human
waste, water softener operation, washing clothes and dishes, gar­bage
disposals, etc. The most significant increase is in sodium
chlorideo
Return flows from lawn and garden watering follows the pattern
set forth for agricultural drainage previously discussed.
Light industrial and commercial operations in cities usually con­tribute
salts to the municipal sewage or to the groundwater even­tually
returning to the river. Although the individual contribution
may be small, the collective total can become appreciable, and all
sources should be evaluated for effective control.
b. Heavy Metals and AssociatedChemicals~ Wastes containing these elements
are widely scat t'e- red-- a ncr- can-" be--- confro1led by discharge requirements on
the individual waste stream. Each discharge requirement will be based
on appropriate factors such aS J but not I imited to the dilution capacity
of the stream and beneficial uses of the stream.
The setting of stream standards for any reach of the river system at
USPHS drinking water 1imits could be interpreted by a discharger as
meaning that he could discharge these chemicals into the stream up to
the 1imit. In effect, then, standards could be unjustly used to dls-
- 15-
criminate against downstream users because there is no dilution
capacity left. This problem of apportionment of dilution capacity of
the stream must be solved on an entire basin level before specific
I imits can be placed on the main stem of the river. This task is
expected to take one to three years.
Until specific 1imits are set, the policy of the Council through the
State Department of Health is to minimize any discharge of these chem­icals
to the rivera Generally, industry is the source of disposals
containing these chemicals; and also generally, these wastes are con­tained
in relatively small volumes of water which could be economically
disposable elsewhere.
Known or potential sources of these chemicals on the Gila River System
are listed In the Implementation Section with methods of control.
c. Biocides: Biocides have been the subject of much discussion in the past,
and probably will be discussed for many years. Prudent use of biocides
has enabled our agricultural industry to provide ample food and fiber
products for our high standard of 1iving. Esthetically, we can have
better gardens and a more healthful existence because of biocides. Un­controlled
use of biocides is not beneficial, and should not be allowed.
Generally speaking, biocides are expensive, and over- appl ications are
seldom made. Discharges of wastes containing biocides from manufactur­ing
and tank cleaning operations must not be allowed o
More research and study of the cumulative effects of biocides on humans
and wildl ife must be made, and appropriate safeguards appl ied as stan­dards
for the Gila River System.
Types and effects of biocides are too numerous and varied for tabula­tion.
Further, the intricacies and variations of technical analysis
for biocides presently defies the prescription of anyone or a few tests
for their detection or determination ( 4). Bio- assay tests can be used
to establ ish allowable 1imits for biocides.
Appl ication of biocides in agricultural operations which could result
In biocide levels in the river water which are deleterious to human,
animal, plant or aquatic life shall be subject to abatement. Mere
detection of a biocide in the water is not cause for abatement.
d.~ adioactiv.!! Yi There are no known wastes containing radioactivity being
discharged into the river system. Future problems will be controlled
by discharge requirements.
e. Dissolved exyge~. E. The maintenance of a satisfactory level of dissolved
oxygen Is obtained as a corollary of the institution of the above listed
measures to achieve water qual ity objectives.
f. Other Chemical Characteristics: The objectives listed in Section 4- 4g
will normally be achieved by the measures 1isted above or by discharge
- 16-
requirements. Boron reduction will be considered along with reduction
of sal inity in agricultural return flows.
Phenols and organic chemical concentrations are not now a problem, and
there are no known discharges. Any proposed dIscharges will be subject
to regulations commensurate with timely technology.
5- 5 Problems Associated with Methods of Reducing Pol!.!:!.. ta~!?~ The major problem
associated with control of pollutants in the Gila River System is that the method
chosen may reduce the quantity of water available to downstream users, or may ad­versely
affect the user downstream by a chemical or physical change in the water.
Factors such as the following should be considered in setting stream standards.
( a) Hardness in domestic water is undesirable, and can be removed by
several processes. Ion exchange or precipitation methods can alter
the cation balance of the water to the extent that the change can
adversely change penetration rates of water in agricultural opera­tions.
( b) Disposal of sewage effluents outside of the river area can reduce the
total flow of the river and reduce the assimilative capacity of the
river downstream, denying the downstream user of his legal entitle­ment
to use of the water.
( c) When waters containing considerable dissolved salts are being con­sidered
for discharge to the river, total resource effects should
be determined, and the decision should not be made on the basis of
the concentration of the discharge aloned This concept is vital In
the conservation of total water supply in the stream. Unwarranted
depletions could deprive downstream users of valuable rights to water
use.
( d) In vi ew of the fact that water disposed of on Iand ina bas in coul d
return to the river underground in worse condition than when IId! sposed
ofII, careful consideration of requirements for disposal on land must
be made. In effect, such disposal could be similar to reclamation of
new land for agricultural purposes as far as sal inity buildup is con­cerned.
5- 6 Additional Measures to Enha~ ce. Water Qual ity:
a. Water. Augmentation: The need of a major water augmentation program
for the ~ ila River System is immediate. Institution of this important
program requires cooperative actions and representations between local,
state, interstate and federal agencies. The Council will do all that
It can to expedite the institution of such water augmentation program,
to improve water qual ity in the Gila River System. The first step Is to
authorIze and build the Central Arizona Project.
b. Investigations: It Is necessary that periodic investigations be con­ducted
In the river or on the watershed to remain apprised of the most
recent conditions which may degrade water quality, and which may effect
- 17-
any particular beneficial use of the river waters. The scope of such
Investigations will vary from cursory field inspections to technical
studies of water quality conditions. Where possible, the investigations
will be conducted under the direction of the Council by the State Depart­ment
of Health staff either alone or In cooperation with other agencies.
However, where specialty is required, the Council will either request or
contract the necessary services through the State Department of Health.
Special emphasis will be placed on finding practical means of reducing
the sal inity of agricultural drainage water, since this benefrcial use
requIres that large quantities of water be returned to the river in
order to maintain a salt balance.
c. Coordination with Other Agencies: The Council and the State Department
of~ alth, in the pursuance of their water quality control activities
will at all times remain in advisem~ nt and consultation with the
several interested agencies, and will work cooperatively with these
agencies to produce the most effective water quality control program
in the Gila River System.
- 18-
6- 0 IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVES
- 19-
The existing surveillance network on the main stem and tributaries of the Gila
River System consists of the following:
--_._--- DATA AVAI LABLE
Flow Sediment Temp. Chemical . Spec. Cond.
X X
X X X* X
X X X X
X X X X
Sampling and analyses in the surveillance program shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedures contained in the latest edition of IIStandard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater", or by other acceptable procedures.
6- 2 Surveillance: Surveillance is the continued observance of waters of the State,
including meas'urement of water qual ity indicators and evaluation of water qual ity
factors. It also incluses the continuous review of monitoring data supplied by
waste dischargers for compliance with requirements prescribed by the Council and
the State Department of Health.
6- 1 General} Preservation and enhancement of water quality in the Gila River
System is a primary function of the State Water Quality Control Council. The
Council's implementation plan is a comprehensive program of surveillance, control
of discharges to the rivers, enforcement, and special activities relating to
investigations, research, coordination with other agencies concerned with water
quality control, and support of a water augmentation program for the basin. These
activities will be elaborated on in the remainder of this section.
The surveillance program is designed to produce sufficient water quality data at
key stations for contInued, effective appraisal of water quality conditions in the
basin. Advantage is taken of existing monitoring programs of other agencies,
supplemented as necessary. The Council will encourage the other agencies to in­corporate
additional monitoring into their programs.
None of the provisions of this Water Quality Control Policy, including specific
criteria, measures or methods of implementation shall be construed as an exemption
or a modification of the Rules and Regulations of the State Department of Health
governing waste treatment and/ or discharge requirements. The policy of the
Department will require the maximum practicable degree of treatment for all waste
sources under the jurisdiction of the Department and treatment methods shall comply
with the applicable rules and regulations.
At the present time the Geological Survey ( USGS) maintains a number of water
quality and stream flow gaging stations at various points on both the main stem of
the Gila River and major tributaries.
USGS STATION
4445- San Francisco River at
CIi fton
4708- Garden Canyon, ( Upper San
Pedro River)
4710- San Pedro River at Charleston
4734- 5an Pedro River near Winkelman
* Dlscontinued Sept. 1946
______.___.._"_._ PATILAVAILABL~_ .
Flow Sediment Temp •. _ Chemi c~..~~,~ C! D~.
-_.,-~ USGS STAnON
4739~~ 1inera 1 Creek X
4740- Gi 1a River at Kelvin X X X X X
4985.- Sa It River near Roosevelt X X X
5020- Salt River below Stewart X X X
Mountain Dam
504S- 0ak Creek near Corny; I Ie X X
SOS3.5 Dry Beaver Creek near
Rimrock X X X X
5100- Verde River below Bartlett X X X X
Dam
511 3- Verde River near Scottsdale X X'" .-
5195- Gi Ja River below Gi I lespi e X X X X
Dam
The State Department of Health wi 11 initiate a program of sampling for bacterio­logical
quality and other special conditions not covered by existing monitoring
programs. It is anticipated that the Department IS , monitoring schedule will not
be rigid but rather will be aimed at identifying special conditions that may vary
with the season of the year and therefore require intensive monitoring rather than
weekly or monthly schedules. Other state agencies, including the Game and Fish
Department, will assist in the sampling aspects of this monitoring program. The
schedule of monitoring will be complete within twelve months after these standards
become effective.
Other Moni tori ng:
a. Local Agencies - Data submitted by local agencies will be reviewed and
acted upon as may be appropriate.
b. Disposals to the rivers - Monitoring data received on individual dis­posals
to the rivers wi 11 be reviewed and recorded.
c. Land use Investigations - Periodic land use investigations wi 11 be
conducted along the rivers to determine any features of operations
which may adversely affect water quality.
d. Records - Records of surveillance are to be maintained in the office
of the State Department of Health, in a document tl tIed IISurvei 11ance
Record - Gila River System".
6- 1.. Waste_ Di scharge Requl re. ments: The State Board of Hea lth of Ari zona has the
authority to prescribe waste discharge requirements under ARS Section 36- 1855,
subject to the limitations contained therein.
* Discontinued Sept. 1946
- 20-
The discharge requirements wi II be set in keeping with the stream standards set
by the Counci I when applicable~
The State Department of Health wi II propose additional rules and regulations for
adoption by the State Board of Health. Such regulations have not been written at
this time due to a shortage of staff. Such regulations should be adopted within
twelve months after these standards become effective. The regulations may include,
but not be limited to the following considerations:
1. Effluent standards as required to meet the stream standards and protect
the public health.
2. Minimum sanitation facilities for recreational areas such as marinas,
parks, and picnic areas.
3. Practices such as logging, highway construction, livestock pen opera­tions,
solid waste disposal, etc.
4. Degradation due to consumptive and non- consumptive usage of water for
cooling, ore leaching, conveyance, etc.
The State Department of Health issues a permit for each discharge of waste. Dis­posal
requirements in each permit are directed mainly towards control of pollution
and nuisance, and maintenance of the water quality objectives. However, where
appropriate, consideration wi II be given to possible enhancement of water quality.
Where considered necessary, the permit shall specify a monitoring schedule,
requiring that the discharger periodically obtain and report various technical
data concerning the disposals. A discharger may not modify an existing disposal
system or increase the volume or strength of any wastes under an existing permit.
A record, titled " vJaste Disposals- Gi la River System", containing permit data for
waste disposals that may affect water quality is to be maintained in the office of
the State Department of Health.
6- 4 General Enforcement: Enforcement activities are directed mainly towards ob­taining
compliance with prescribed waste discharge requirements. Generally, en­forcement
is initiated on staff level. Here attempt is made to obtain correction
by informal discussion of the problem. Where such informal procedures fail to
produce adequate correction, the alleged violation will be considered by the State
Department of Health to determine whether the discharge is taking place contrary
to the prescribed requirements.
Upon finding affirmatively, the State Department of Health wi 11 cause a written
complaint to be served upon the alleged violator, specifying the regulation vio­lated,
and shall order that corrective action be taken within a specified
reasonable time, affording opportunity for a fair hearing as prescribed by law.
Upon fai lure of the discharger to comply with the cease and desist order, the
State Department of Health wi 11 certify the facts to the Attorney General) whose
duty is to bring an action for an injunction against the alleged violator. There­after,
the State Department of Health wi II provide evidence as requested by the
Attorney General or the court.
- 21-
6- 5 Special Enforcement. Actiuns: The following are specific areas that need ex­planation
regarding enforcement action in the immediate and foreseeable future:
The sources of pollution within the Gila River System do not lend them­selves
to vigorous enforcement actions based on a rigid time schedule.
There are numerous mines located in this area and some of them may be re­quired
to provide improvements that will eliminate existing or potential
sources of pollution. Waste rock, mill tailings and smelter slag were ex­cluded
from control until the amendment of existing statutes and the passage
of a new water quality control act cn March 16, 1967. Detailed information
which would permit an evaluation of the impact the mining industry may have
on the qual ity of water in the Gila River System is not available at the
present time. The monitoring program will be aimed, in part, at gathering
sufficient data to permit an evaluation of the effect of the mining industry.
The Gila River System includes the recreational areas popularly known as the
" White Mountain Country" and the " Mogollan Rim Countryll. These areas have
numerous mountain streams and lakes that attract summer visitors and tour­ists.
Many of the lakes are surrounded by summer homes and tourist cabins.
Campgrounds and recreational facilities varying from picnic areas to dude
ranches are located adjacent to the mountain streams. The wastes from these
areas are generally disposed of by septic tank systems. The public health
problems and the nutrient contribution from these areas need to be evaluated
and controlled.
There are several small communities within the Gila River System that are
unsewered. Many of these communities experience wide fluctuations in popu­lation
during the year due to the influx of summer residents. Community
leaders are often unable to obtain the support from temporary residents
necessary for the construction of municipal waste collection and treatment
systems. The Department will urge these communities to avail themselves of
the funds now available from several Federal agencies.
The following is a tabulation of waste sources known to the Department at
the present time that require corrective action. The list is not intended
to be a complete tabulation, but is based on information currently available.
1) Safford is a community of approximately 6500 people that is served by
an inadequate community septic tank system. They have received a
grant offer of PL- 660 funds and have passed a bond issue for sewerage
works. A new treatment facil ity consisting of stabilization ponds is
expected to be completed within one year.
2) Pima County Sanitary District No. I serves all of Pima County outside
of the incorporated limits of the City of Tucson. This area includes
numerous subdivisions of which several are remote from a treatment
facility. Consequently, the District has several such areas which are
sewered but are not connected to a treatment facil ity. Sewage is
collected in manholes and is pumped and hauled to a treatment plant.
While this method of disposal is considered a temporary expedient,
this situation has existed for several years. Overflowing sewage from
these manholes is a common occurrence.
- 22-
The elimination of this problem would involve a considerable sum of
money. Part of the problem is due to the fact that the City of Tucson
has incorporated those areas contiguous to the City where the population
density is greatest. This results in a loss of tax base for the District.
The District fi led suit against the City to reclaim some of these lost
revenues. The suit has recently been settled out of court and the Dis­trict
is to receive funds which wi 11 permit the connection of several
sewered areas to a central treatment plant. The Department has consulted
with the District to discuss the overall problem. The objective is to
eliminate all raw sewage discharges and the hauling of sewage from common
collection points. This wi 11 be accomplished by the construction of
interceptor sewers or the construction of a treatment faci lity at the
site.
3) ~ ogaJes, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona are served by a common treatment
plant operated by the International Boundary and Vater Commission. This
plant is completely inadequate and raw sewage is frequently bypassed to
Nogales Wash. Deliberations aimed at eliminating this serious public
health hazard have been underway since 1959 without any tangible results
to date. Our most recent information indicates that a new plant wi 11 not
be completed prior to 1969. We feel that this problem should receive the
concerted attention of the responsible agencies in order to bring about
the earliest possible elimination of this health menace.
4) Casa Grande is a community that has a population of approximately 10,000.
It is served by a primary treatment pl~ nt followed by lagoons. The
system is overlcaded. In addition, a metal products plant contributes
wastes to the municipal system. The City treats the acid chromate and
alkaline wastes at the plant site with the effluent being discharged to
the municipal system. Recent investigations have revealed operational
problems at the industrial plant which result in the discharge of wastes
to the municipal system that seriously interfere with the operation of
the municipal treatment faci lity. The problem is being investigated and
it appears that corrective measures must be taken immediately.
6- 6 I nventory of Poll ut iona 1 Sources in_ 1he G. l. lE.-. B. lvet:_ Ba~. Ln oL.~.. rJ. zo~: The
following is a general outline of pollutional sources by sub- basins in the State
of Arizona as of May 23, 1967. ( All locations noted are straight- l ine distances).
Verde River Su~- basin:
1) Ca! JlP_ Ver. Q~ Is located in Yavapai County approxiil1ately 80 miles north
of Phoenix and has a present population of 1,500. The wastes collected
in this community are treated by a stabilization lagoon system and
discharged to the Verde River. No data is available at this time on
actual quantities of sewage treated, or adequacy of treatment.
2) Clarkdale has a present population of approximJtely 1,100 and is
located in Yau 3pai County 95 miles due north of Phoenix. Wastes are
collected and disposed of by a stabilization lagoon system. The
effluent is discharged to the Verd~ River and no data is available
- 23-
as to the volume of flow.
3) Jerome is approximately 90 miles north of Phoenix and has a present
population of approximately 350. Wastes are treated by an out of date
trickling filter plant. No data is available on present sewage flow.
4) Oak Creek Canyon and Sedona are situated in the western division of what
is called the Mogolfc'n Rim- Region. Mogollon Rim bounds the northern
edge of the canyon. High mountains to the east and west coupled with
the rim define an area of about 350 square miles in area. The head
waters of Oak Creek emerge from the intersection of the Oak Creek fault
with the water table and continues almost southerly to the confluence
with the Verde River just below Cornville. The faults underlying the
region carry a substantial portion of the surface runoff to ground­water.
Total population for the region is approximately 5,000 with
the highest density being in the area of Sedona with a population & found
4,500. The region is ideal for many forms of recreational pursuit.
The proximity of pit privies in camping areas and septic tank leaching
fields disposal facilities adjacent to the creek are felt to be the
major causes of a pollutional threat in this area.
5) a. ~ rescott has a population of approximately 14,000 and is the county
seat of Yavapai County. Wastes receive primary treatment followed
by an oxidation lagoon system with sludge disposal by digesters.
The effluent is used primarily for irrigation and is impounded in
Watson Lake at the rate of 1.5 mill ion gallons per day. When the
impoundment capacity of Watson is exceeded, the excess is discharged
to Granite Creek, which is tributary to the Verde River, approxi­mately
20 miles due north of the lake.
b. Pre2.£ Q!.!.."" CoJ~ g~, located southwest of the City of Prescott, treats
its waste in a package aeration plant followed by chlorination. The
effluent is discharged to a drainage channel that runs adjacent to
the college property.
6) Seligman, in Yavapai County, is reported to have a community septic tank
sewage disposal system. The effluent is discharged to Big Chino Wash.
This means of treatment and disposal is Inadequate and in need of modi­fication
to be in line with minimum requirements.
B. Industrial Pollution Sources:
This basin h~ s no major sources of industrial poliution. Reports of a small
scale copper leaching process in the Clarkdale- Jerome region was at one time
contributing iron laden runoff to the surface waters in this region. Other
industrial activities include livestock operations and a cement plant •
. Salt River Sub- basin:
A. Community Pollution Sources:
1) The Christ9pher ~ reek and Tonto Creek recreation areas are located
approximately 90 miles northeast of Phoenix in the Tonto National
- 24-
Forest. Increased summer recreational use of these areas for camping
and fishing along with an increase in permanent summer homes and
trailer parks may result in contamination of these waters. The ter­rain
is particularly mountainous and rocky and provides poor soil for
the use of individual septic tank disposal systems.
2) McNarywith a population of approximately 1 1 600 is situated in the
southern portion of Apache County, just below the Mogollon Rim. The
community presently collects and treats wastes in two community septic
tank systems. The effluent is discharged to Gomez Creek. Southwest
Forest Products Industry located in McNary has formed a holding pond
in the creek within the community. No data Is available as to the
quantity of waste collected in the community. Plans are underway at
this time for solving this problem.
3) Miami is located 75 miles due east of Phoenix with a present population
of approximately 3,500. The original Imhoff tank plant has been
abandoned. Gas chlorination equipment Is still used for part time
odor control. All sewage is bypassed to a stabll ization lagoon system,
which is severely overloaded and in need of expansion. All of the
wastes are lost to evaporation and sewage. No data is available on
the quantities of wastes treated. This form of disposal is inadequate
and in need of modification.
4) Glebe is approximately 6 miles east of Miami with a population of
5,300 and treats its wastes by a stabilization lagoon system. The
community is 100 percent sewered, producing approximately 70,000
gallons of wastes per day. Effluent from the lagoon system is disg
charged to Pinal Creek where it is impounded in tail ings ponds.
5) Tal ison Hest Architectur_ al Schoo! is located northeast of the Scottsdale­Phoenix
area. The school operates an extended aeration plant with a
design capacity of 15,000 gpd, for approximately 100 residents and 150
daily visitors. The effluent is given tertiary treatment by oxidation
ponds and is used for irrigation with any excess being discharged to a
dry wash.
6) Carefree is a community of recent residential development in Maricopa
County- which is partially served by a community sewer with an approxi­mate
connected sewage load of 25,000 gpd. The sewerage system includes
a package type extended aeration treatment plant designed for 100,000
gpd. The treatment facility is operated seasonally, during the winter
tourist season, and effluent is discharged into a holding pond and dis­posed
of by irrigation.
7) The metropolitan Phoenix area is actually comprised of five cities.
They include Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Glendale, and have
a total population of approximately 690,000, covering an area of 600
square miles. The five- city waste collection system brings wastes
to two treatment plants located on the banks of the Salt River. Wastes
are treated by the activated sludge method with sludge disposal by
anaerobic digesters. Effluent from the facil ity is discharged to the
Salt River approximately four miles east of the confluence of the Gila
- 25-
and Salt Rivers at the rate of 55 million gal Ions per day. This
discharge could be saId to be the only major surface water besides
excess irrigation waters and storm runoff added to the rIver since
It is essentially dry throughout the year. The statistics for each
of the five communitIes contributing wastes to these facll ities is
as follows:
a. Phoenix has a population of 518,000. The total sewage flow Is
approximately 40 mgd with 12 mgd of this amount being treated
at the 23rd Avenue plant and the remainder being treated at the
91st Avenue plant.
b. Tempe has an approximate population of 50,000 and contributes
an approximate average sewage flow of 3.5 mgd. This sewage Is
treated at the Phoenix 91st Avenue treatment plant.
c. Mesa has an approximate population of 51,000 and contributes an
approxImate average sewage flow of 0.6 mgd to the 9lst Avenue
plant. The balance of sewage flow, approximately 4.5 mgd, is
treated at the City of Mesa sewage treatment plant which has a
design capacity of Sea mgd. This plant consists of clarifiers,
digesters, trickling filter and stabll ization ponds, and Is per­forming
satIsfactorily. Effluent Is discharged to land by Irri­gatIon.
d. Scottsdale has an approxImate populatIon of 60,000 and contributes
a sewage flow of about 4 mgd to the 9lst Avenue plant.
e. Glendale has an approximate population of 31,000 and has an
approximate average sewage flow of 2.5 mgd which Is treated at
the Phoenix 9lst Avenue treatment plant.
8. Tolleson Is located 2 miles west of PhoenIx and has a population of
approximately 4,500. The community is presently building a multi­mill
Ion dollar sewage treatment facll ity In conjunction with a
large meat packing concern. The packing plant will contribute about
95% of the total load to the plant. The plant has a design capacIty
of 3.2 mgd and the effluent from this plant will receive tertiary
treatment and be utilized for unrestricted IrrIgation.
B. Industrial Pollution Sources:
1) The Phoenix metropolItan area contains several industrial concerns
that produce substantIal quantities of wastes. The majority of
these sources are located in or near the Salt River Bed. Meat
packing plants operate small scale waste disposal facll itles for
handl ing their by- products. The effluent from these facil itles are
discharged to the rIver bed by surface drainage or subsurface seep­age.
A number of cattle feedlot operatIons also located adjacent
to and in the Salt River Bed offer a source of pollution to waters
enterIng the river bed by surface runoff contact wIth manure wastes
Inherent to these operations. The Sperry Rand Corporation north of
Phoenix outside the city limits, maintains 12.1 acres of stabIlization
- 26-
lagoons to treat both domestic and industrial wastes produced at the
plant. At this time there is no surface discharge from the system~
2) Power concerns in this State operate several steam generatIng plants
1n the basin. Blowoff water from these units are disposed of by
evaporation lagoons, discharge to surface runoff or by seepage.
3) Lumber logging and sa~ mill operations throughout the mountain country
of the basin may present some source of pollution.
4) Recreational use of the entire chain of reservoirs and rivers in the
basin may present a minor pollution problem. Major recreational
activity at time time occurs at Saguaro and Canyon Lakes in the form
of swimming, skiing and boating. Use of these areas is so pronounced
in the summer months that at times beaches must be closed after a
given number of people have entered the particular beach area.
Several lakes in the White MountaIn area are intensively used for
recreation.
Gila River Basin:
A. .. Commun i ~ y Po 11 ut i.. Q. rLSoU ree s: .
1) San Manuel, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 4,500 with
the majority of people employed at the San Manuel Copper Division of
Magma Copper Company. The community is 100% sewered with collection
Jines terminating at a treatment facll ity consisting of clarifiers
and lagoons with sludge disposal by anaerobic digesters. Effluent
is discharged to the tailings ponds from which it is recycled back
into the mining operations. The last inspection of the facil ity
indicated it was in good condition, well maintained and providing
good service to the community with no problems occurring since its
construction.
2) Casa Grande, Pinal County, has at present a population approaching
10,000. The city is almost entirely sewered and produces wastes in
the range of 800,000 gpd. These wastes are treated by a clarifier
lagoon system with sludge digestion by anaerobic digesters. The
facil ity at last Inspection appeared to be fail ing as the lagoons
were in poor shape and digester analysis showed that conditions were
unfavorable for efficient digestion. Industrial wastes from the in­dustrial
waste treatment facll ity operated by the city mentioned
previously may be a cause of this condition. Effluent from the system
is primarily used for irrigation with excess discharged to the Santa
Cruz Wash. The facll ity is felt to be inadequate, and also) the pre­sent
program of operation and maintenance which is very deficient at
this time. The city has been urged to solve these problems.
3) Cool idg~, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 5,500, and
an estimated sewage flow of .5 mgd. Sewage treatment is made up of
primary clarifIers and secondary oxidation lagoons. Sludge digestion
is provided by an anaerobic digester. The oxidation lagoons were
designed for an equivalent population of 9,500 and at this time appear
- 27-
overloaded. Effluent dispnsal is by irrigation.
4) Eloy, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 5400. Collected
wastes are treated by a stabilization lagoon system at the rate of
approximately 1.0 mgd. The effluent is discharged to irrigation with
a portion of it being used at present for road construction in the
region. The system appears to be adequate at this time.
5) The Indian community of Sacaton, Pinal County, employs a stabil ization
lagoon to treat wastes. The Pima Indian Agency in conjunction with a
Public Health Service hospital located in the community maintains the
facility. No data is available on the population served by the system,
however, there have been nn reports of the system not functioning
properly. The facility was designed for a population of 350 in 1950.
It is felt that the population today is substantially greater and the
facility may be overloaded.
6) Kearny, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 2200. The
community is 10~ h sewered with collected wastes treated by an aerated
lagoon system. The effluent is used for irrigation with excess dis­charged
to the Gila River adjacent to the facility. The system appears
to be working satisfactorily at this time.
7) . Mammoth, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 1600. The
community is served by a stabilization lagoon sewage disposal unit
with the effluent discharged to the San Pedro River.
8) Oracle, Pinal County, has a population of approximately 2500. The
area is only partially sewered with wastes treated by a stabilization
lagoon system. The effluent is discharged to a dry wash adjacent to
the lagoon. Data available indicates an approximate daily flow of
30,000 gallons per day. During the summer months there is very little
effluent from the lagoon.
9) a. Florence, County Seat of Pinal County, has a population of approx­imately
2200. Sewage treatment facility consists of clarifier and
oxidation lagoons with sludge disposal lagoons with sludge dis­posal
by anaerobic digesters. The facility also handles wastes
from the Federal Prison with an average resident population of
1700. At present the facility is designed to treat a daily flow
of 1.3 mgd. Effluent from the plant is used partially for irri­gation
with excess discharged to the Gila River.
b. Federal Detention Center at Florence, Pinal County, is a temporary
detention- type facility with an average population of 110, in­cluding
prisoners and famil ies of staff members. Sewage from this
institution is treated and disposed of by two oxidation ponds
1.3 and 0.5 acres, which operate in series and provide holding
time sufficient to evaporate the total sewage flow. Provision is
made to discharge any overflow to surrounding desert land.
10) Williams Air Force Base, Pinal County, has a base population varying
between 3300 and 3700 with equivalent populatlnn of 3400 being average.
- 28-
The base sewage treatment facil ities consist of primary and secondary
clarifiers coupled with primary- secondary trickl ing filters. Sludge
digestion is provided by anaerobic digesters. The effluent flows to
either one of two disposal points. A farmer with fields on the west
side of the base pumps effluent from the outfall pipeline and uses it
to irrigate forage crops. When not used for irrigation the effluent
is discharged into a canal operated and maintained by the Roosevelt
Conservation District. It has been reported that the water in this
canal is used on edible crops intended for human consumption. Data
indicates the faci] ity is providing an average reduction of 7~ 1o on the
raw sewage BOD. Solids removal has averaged 76%. These values in­dicate
the treatment unit is not providing a very efficient treatment
program considering that the effluent is used for irrigation. Design
plans are being formulated at this time for modification of the
faci I ity.
11) a. Luke Air Force Base, Maricopa County, has an on base population of
approximately 7500. Average sewage flows of 1.0 mgd are treated
by an efficient clarifier- trickling filter plant with sludge dis­posal
by anaerobic digesters. The facility provides 85% and
greater reduction of raw sewage strength.
b. Luke Air Force Base AuxilIary Field at Gila Bend, Maricepa County,
has a population of approxiinateTy 300. The field has a community
septic tank treatment system with effluent discharged to a dry
wash that is tributary to the Gila River a very short distance
from the base. The base has been advised that this form of sewage
disposal is inadequate and that it is in violation of State Depart­ment
of Health regulati~ ns.
12) Wickenbu~ g, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of 2500
and an estimated sewage flow of 0.25 mgd. Sewage treatment is pro­vided
by a relatively new unconventional system incorporating the
introduction of air in a prolonged system of underground pipes,
followed by sedimentation, and an oxidation pond. Plant performance
thus far has been satisfactory and removals have been generally in
excess of 85%. Effluent is discharged directly into the ordinarily
dry bed of Hassayampa River, a tributary of the Gila River.
13) a. Peoria, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of 4000.
There is presently no community sewerage system; however, appJi­catio~
s have been made with the Federal agencies, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration ( FWPCA) and Housing and Urban
Development ( HUO) for assistance in financing a complete sewerage
system project.
b. Apollo Mobile Home Park, in the vicinity of Peoria, Maricopa
County, has a proposed population of approximately 500. This
recently constructed mobile home park has a community sewerage
system with a package- type extended aeration treatment plant of
40,000 gpd capacity. Treated wastewater is disposed of under­ground
by seepage pits.
- 29-
14) Sun City, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of 11,000
and a sewage flow of approximately 0.5 mgd. Sewage treatment is
presently provided by oxidation ponds, partially aerated. There is
no intentional discharge of pond effluent to surface waterways, but
there has been report of effluent in the ordinarily dry channel of
New River, a tributary to the Gila River. While the design capacity
of the present plant facility is intended to satisfy sewage treat­ment
requ i renlents unt i 1 about 1975, there is pi ann ing present I y
underway to replace the oxidation system with a contact stabil ization
type plant providing effluent satisfactory for unrestricted irrigation.
15) ~ handler, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of
13,000. Present sewage treatment comprises primary treatment by
clarifier and digester, and secondary treatment oxidation ponds.
Effluent disposal is made by evaporation from ponds. Relocation of
treatment facility is presently planned under FWPCA construction
grants program. The proposed facility is to be total treatment by
aerated oxidation ponds which are to be located on Gila River Indian
Reservation land. Capacity of the proposed facil ity is 2.8 mgd.
Disposal of effluent will be by irrigation of Indian land.
16) a. J? vonQ. al. § , in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of
6 p 700. Sewage treatment facilities handle combined sewage load
of Goodyear, an incorporated town of an approximate population
of 1,900. Sewage flow from the combined sources totals
approximately 0.5 mgd. Primary treatment by clarifier and
anaerobic digester, and secondary treatment by oxidation ponds
is provided. The design capacity of the plant is 1 mgd and is
operating satisfactorily. Discharge of effluent is made to land
by irrigation.
b. phoenix Trotting Park is a resort facility in the vicinity of
Avondale, Maricopa County, and is equipped with a package- type
extended aeration sewage treatment plant which operates on a
time- controlled intermittent basis. This treatment facility is
designed for a population of 3,000, and treated water is discharged
into evaporating lagoons.
17) Gilbert, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of 1,850.
Sewage treatment is handled by oxidation ponds which are operating
satisfactorily. Effluent is discharged to land by irrigation.
18) Litchfield Park, in Maricopa County, has an estimated present
population of 1,000 0 An active program of residential development
is presently underway which is expected to increase the population
to 47,000 by 1985. Sewage treatment is presently handled by a
recently expanded plant consisting of clarifier, digester and stabil­ization
ponds. This facil ity is presently loaded near full capacity
and plans for a complete new treatment plant are being considered.
plant effluent is presently discharged to land by irrigation.
- 30 -
19) Buckey~, in Maricopa County, has an approximate population of 2,700
and an average sewage flow of 0.25 mgd. Present sewage treatment is
by primary clarifier, digester and oxidation ponds. This treatment
facil ity is being replaced under Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration construction grant by a new oxidation pond system of
0.33 mgd design capacity which is nearing completion. Discharge of
effluent is mede to land by irrigation.
20) Gila Bend, in MarIcopa County, has an approximate population of 2,500,
about one- fourth of which is served by community sewer. Sewage treat­ment
is provided by oxidation ponds, and effluent is discharged into
the channel of the Gila River.
21) The sis ter cit ies of Nog~.. 1.£ s, Ar::) zon~. and Noga l~ s, Sonor~, Mex ico,
located in Santa Cruz County, have a combined population of approx­imately
60,000 ( 10,000 Nogales, Arizona and 50,000 Nogales, Sonora,
Mexico). Collected wastes for both communities are discharged to a
wastewatGr treatment plant located three miles north of the border
along Nogales Creek, tributary to the Santa Cruz River. This plant
was designed for 1.6 mill ion gallons per dayin 1950. Currently,
it is grossly overloaded with 3.5 mgd and must bypass excess waste
into the Nogales Creek. Plans are being formulated to relocate a
larger capacity plant further downstream which will el iminate this
problem.
22) Patagoni~, located in Santa Cruz County, has a population of approximate­ly
5,250 0 Approximately 30,000 gallons per day of domestic wastes are
treated in a 1.1 acre stabil ization pond~ The chlorinated effluent is
discharged into the Sonoita Creek, approximately 14 miles above its
confluence with the Santa Cruz River. Records and inspections of the
facil ity indicate it is providing satisfactory treatment.
23) The Lakewood .. Su~ div_ l~ ion, located in Pima County near the Kinsley1s
area, has a population of 40~ Approximately 3~ OOO gallons per day
of domestic wastes from the subdivision is del ivered to two 1/ 2 acre
stabil ization ponds which operate in series. To date, there is no
runoff into the Santa Cruz River from these ponds.
24) Green Valley. located in Pima County, has a population of 1,800 and
approximately 135,000 gallons per day of domestic waste is treated
by a 1.9 acre stabil ization pond located near the Santa Cruz River.
Unch10rinated effluent is discharged into the normally dry Santa
Cruz channel and percolates into the subgrade within several miles
downstream. Records and inspections indicate satisfactory operati on
and treatment are being afforded by the facil ity at this time.
25) Santa Tomas Villag~, a subdivision located in Pima County approx­imately
fifteen miles south of Tucson, has a population of 110 and
approximately 8.200 gallons per day of domestic waste Is del ivered
to the 2 acre stabil ization pond. Unchlorlnated effluent will be
discharged to the adjacent dry wash and is expected to percolate
readily into the subgrade. The facility Is newly constructed and
operating adequately.
- 31-
- 32-
30) The resort area of Summerhaven at M~ L~~ mmon in the Santa Catal ina
area, has a maximum summer population of 100 and a winter population
of 30. The area is served by a large septic tank with effluent
chlorinated and passed through a sand filter prior to discharge into
Mt. Lemmon Creek. This creek is a second order tributary to the
Rill ito River which drains into the Sant. a Cruz River. The treatment
is not adequate during summer peak flows and is quite odorous.
31) The Hidden Val1.~ ubdivis!. 9l1 area in Pima County has a population
of approximately 370 residents. The subdivision is located along
Sabino Canyon which directs surface drainage to the Rill ito River
northeast of Tucson. The 1.25 acre stabil ization ponds treat about
28,000 gallons per day domestic waste with unchlorlnated effluent
discharging into the intermittent Sabino Creek. Treatment is in­adequate
at this writing and newly constructed sewers will connect
this area to the Ina Road ponds ( Item 27).
The San itary_ D i str:..!. ct. Jt. L. 2. L~. ima County operates the Ina Road stab ili­zation
pond complex on the Santa Cruz River. This facii ity is approx­imately
6 miles downstream of the City of Tucson treatment plant and
treats the domestic wastes from approximately 4,000 residents outside
the City of Tucson city 1imits. About 250,000 gallons per day is del­ivered
to the two ponds, having a total of 9.9 surface acres. The un­chlorinated
effluent is discharged directly into the Santa Cruz River
channel five miles below the facil ity~ Treatment is satisfactory at
this time.
Tucson r located in Pima County, has a population of 300,000 with
approximately 22 mill ion gallons per day of domestic waste del ivered
to the treatment plant located on the Santa Cruz River at the
northerly city I imits. The existing piant Is composed of a 12 mgd
activated sludge plant, a 12 mgd trickl ing filter plant and a newly
constructed 12 mgd activated sludge plant, all operating in parallel.
When the new addition is completed ( November 1967) the total capacity
will be 36 mgd G Approximately 5 mgd of the chlorinated effluent is
being discharged into the normally dry Santa Cruz River channel, with
the remainder used for irrigation of non- edible crops. Treatment is
marginal with an average BOD removal of only 80%.
The Sani~~.!}'._. Q. lst.~. Lc_~_ tll, Avra Valley stabil ization pond complex is
located one mile north of Ryan Air Field in Avra Valley and treats
the domestic wastes from approximately 700 residents living in the
Tucson Mountain Park area. About 56,000 gallons per day are del ivered
to the stabil ization ponds having a combined surface area of 2 acres.
The unchlorinated effluent is discharged into an unnamed dry wash,
tributary to the Santa Cruz River and ~ ercolates into subgrade within
one mile of the ponds. Treatment is satisfactory at this time.
The Southern Arizona Asthmatic School in Tucson has a population of
is- students uti] izing a stabil ization pond of 1/ 2 acre which treats
7,500 gallons of deomestic waste daily. The unchlorinated effluent
is discharged into an adjacent dry wash tributarf to the Santa Cruz
River and percolates readily. Treatment is sa~ isfactory at this time.
26)
28)
29)
32) The Forty.~ ln~ r? Country Club Es!. § . teE area in Pima County has a
population of 90 residents. The subdivision is located along the
Tanque Verde Wash, tributary to the Rill ito River. A large septic
tank with two I acre oxidation lagoons followed by chlorination and
sand- gravel filters treats approximately 7,000 gallons per day of
domestic wastes with the effluent being discharged into the inter­mittent
Tanque Verde Wash. High ground water has increased in­filtration
into the collector sewers and overloaded this facil ity.
At this writing treatment is marginal at its best and there may be
some pollutional danger to downstream \ vells~ Current plans are
underway to connect this system to the Ina Road treatment site
( Item 27).
33) The Texaco Truck Ter~ l~~ l in Pima County, located on U. S. Highway 80,
approximately seven miles southeast of Tucson disposes of all waste­water
in two .25 acre ponds with the effluent discharged into an
adjacent dry wash where it readily percolates into the subgrade.
This unnamed wash is a tributary to Pantano Wash which carries storm
runoff into the Rill ito River. Difficulties have arisen with dis­posal
of petroleum wastes and the ponds are experiencing some oper­ational
problems at this time.
34) The Arizona- Sonora Des~. rr.. 1' 1use. HJIl in Pima County, located in the west­ern
end of the Tucson Mountains, has a population of approximately
50 people and treats approximately 4,000 gallons per day of domestic
waste in a 0.2 acre sewage stabil ization pond~ The unchlorinated
effluent is discharged into an adjacent dry wash where it readily
percolates into the subgrade. Treatment is satisfactory at this time.
35) The ~ ands Mobile . Ho~~ 1~ r~ in Pima County has a population of
200 and is located on the Canada del Oro Wash, approximately 8 miles
upstream of the confluence with the Santa Cruz River. Approximately
15,000 gallons per day of domestic waste is delivered to a large
septic tank and leaching field. From available records and field
inspections, the system is adequate at this time.
36) The domestic waste from the Ca, talina.£. QQt. lJll. 1s Subdivisioll area in
Pima County, located in the north section of Tucson, is being treated
in a surface aerated type package plant. The effluent from the plant
is pumped into a holding pond with final disposal by evaporation.
The management of this facil ity was recently given to the Pima County
Sanitary District No. I. The plant is inadequate and overloaded and
the effluent is of poor quality. The District will soon connect this
sewerage system to its Ina Road Complex ( Item 27) and take this plant
out of service.
37) . Bisbee, in Cochise County, has three separate drainage areas, two of
which are in the Gila basin and the other drains southerly to Mexico.
The total population of the area is approximately 12,000.
a. The Warren area of Bisbee is located to the west of the old
townsite and drainage is into the Greenbush Wash, tributary
to the San Pedro River. This area has a population of 4,000.
- 33-
Approximately 400,000 gallons per day of domestic waste is del­ivered
to the four stabi lization ponds which have completely
failed due to improper construction and maintenance. The City
of Bisbee is in the process of constructing new ponds to replace
the inadequate facilities and produce an acceptable effluent.
The effluent is currently used for irrigation with any excess
discharged to the adjacent dry washes where it percolates readi ly
to subsurface drainage.
be The ~ an Jose area of Bisbee, located w~ st of the old townsite and
northerly of the Warren area, with drainage into the Greenbush
Wash, has a population of 4,000. Currently the area is served
with septic tanks which have proved unsatisfactory due to poor
leaching conditions. Plans are underway by the City of Bisbee
for the construction of a sewerage system and stabi lization pond.
38) Benson in Cochise County has a population of approxImately 3,000. The
community uses two separate waste disposal systems outlined below:
ao The older townsite situated close to the San Pedro River treats
approximately 80,000 gallons per day of domestic waste uti lizing
an Imhoff tank system followed by an oxidation pond. Inspections
indicate this faci lity has fai led and is inadequatee The City of
Benson has been informed of this failure but to date has done
nothing. The unsatisfactory effluent from the oxidation pond is
discharged into the San Pedro River.
b. ~ pproximately 220,000 gallons per day of domestic waste from the
remainder of the town's population is served by an 8.5 surface
acre stabilization pond. Records and inspections indicate that
this facility is satisfactory. Effluent is discharged into an
adjacent dry wash where it percolates to the subgrade before
reaching the San Pedro River.
39) The Phelps- Dodge Corporation mining town of Morenci, Arizona has a
population of 5,000 with domestic wastes treated in three separate
residential areas, as follows:
a. Plant Site # 1, # 2 3 Areas ( Approximately 3,500 population)
Approximately 350,000 gallons per day of domestic wastes are
treated by the newly constructed clarifier- digester followed by
a trickling fi Itere Design flow through plant is 544 gpm. All
chlorinated effluent is pumped to the mine's leaching area and
utilized in the leaching process. All treated sludge is pumped
to drying beds in a standard manner. Inspections indicate all
waste is being satisfactorily treated and no waste is al lowed to
drain from the plant.
b. Stargo Area ( ApprOXimately 1,500 population)
Approximately 150,000 gallons per day of domestic wastes are
- 34-
44)_ Slerra Vista, an incorporated city In Cochise County with an approx­imate
population of 4,700, is located adjacent to Fort Huachuca
Military Reservation and Is the homesite for mil itary and civil Ian
personnel attached to the base. Present expansion of activity at
Fort Huachuca Is imposing an impact upon housing and existing sewer­age
facilities in the Sierra Vista area. The existing sewage treat­ment
plant which includes a clarlgester and trickling filter is
- 35-
c. Indian Town ( 30 Units)
Duncan, located in Greenlee County, has a population of 900. Approx­imately
90,000 gallons per day are treated by two 1 acre stabi1 iza­tion
ponds operated in parallel. A very stable effluent is dis­charged
to the Gila River.
~ llfton in Greenlee County has a population of 3,000 people. Approx­imately
300,000 gallons per day are treated by a clarifier- digester
followed by a trickl ing filter. Sludge is drawn to drying beds.
Reports and inspections by this Department indicate adequate opera­tion
and maintenance of this plant is being accompl ished. The
chlorinated effluent is satisfactorily discharged into the San
Francisco River.
Approximately 9,000 gallons per day of domestic waste is being
treated by the same process as above. All chlorinated effluent
is pumped to the leaching area and no wastewater is allowed to
drain from the plant. All records indicate the plant is ad­equately
treating the wastes and producing a satisfactory efflu­ent.
Safford, located in Graham County, has a'population of 6,000. Approx­imatefy
700,000 ga 11 ons per day of domest i c waste is treated by two
160,000 gallon septic tanks with effluent discharged directly into
the Gila River. These units have failed and little or no treatment
is provided before discharge into the river. Construction plans for
a new facil ity to replace these units are underway and the new stabi­1ization
ponds should be completed within one year.
treated by the same process as above, only in a smaller unit.
All chlorinated effluent is pumped to the leaching area and none
is allowed to drain from the plant. Inspections indicate that
all wastes are being adequately treated.
Huachuca City, an incorporated town in Cochise County with an approx­imate
population of 1,400, is located adjacent to Fort Huachuca
Mil itary Reservation which has a heavy influence upon the economy of
surrounding areas. Presently an expansion of the mil itary program
of the base is producing a need for housing and sewerage facil ities
In the Huachuca City area. There is a project underway under Federal
grant to construct a sewerage system which includes oxidation ponds
for complete sewage treatment. Treated wastewater from the system
will be discharged into the dry channel of Babocomari River, a tribu­tary
of San Pedro River.
40)
42)
41 )
overloaded and is producing inadequate treatment. A project of
construction of sewerage facilities is underway under Federal grant.
This project includes an oxidation pond system designed for a popu­lation
of 6,000 and with provision made for expansion. Discharge of
treated wastewater will be to a dry wash and thence to the San Pedro
River.
45) Fort Hu_~ ch~ ca Mi__!. it~' i. ~_~ sE? r. Y~. tJon is a U. S~ Army electronics test­ing
unit located at the base of the Huachuca Mountains in Cochise
County. This base produces an average sewage flow of 1.9 mgd which
is treated at a plant located on the reservation and operated by
base personnel~ Treatment plant faci) ity consists of flocculator­clarifier,
digester and oxidation pond, and sewage treatment is
reported to be satisfactory. Treated effluent is discharged to
reservation land by irrigation.
46) Davis- Monthan Air Force Base is a U. S. Air Force installation in
the southeast- Tucson-- area.-- Operational facil ities and living accom­modations
which include 560 residences on the base produce an average
sewage flow of 3 to 4 mgd. The base is served by the municipal
sewerage system of the City of Tucson.
47) South Tucson is an incorporated town in Pima County with a present
population of approximately 20,000. The population connected to a
community sewerage system is approximately 12,000. Sewage contrib­uted
by the connected population averages approximately 1.2 mgd and
is discharged to the sewerage system of the City of Tucson.
B. Industrial Pollution Sources:
1) New Cornelia Mill and Smelter near Ajo, Pima County, is owned and
operatecj"- bythe- P- helps-': Oodge- Corp. This industry employs approx­imately
1,300 men and produces approximately 140 mill ion pounds of
copper annually, This industry lies in the drainage area of the Ten
Mile Wash, a tributary of the Giia River. No intentional discharge
of wastewater is being made to surface waterways at this time.
2) t1. i-? sion Uni.~_ coE~!_~!!~_. an~_~ i11, owned and operated by the American
Smelting and Refining Co. near Sahuarita, Pinal County, employs approx­imately
520 men and produces approximately 134 mill ion pounds of
copper annually. This industry is located in the drainage area of
the Santa Cruz River and uses approximately 6 mgd of process water,
representing 2~ 1o of the daily usage. The remaining 8~ 1o of the process
water is obtained through recirculation. No intentional discharge of
wastewater is being made to surface waterways at this time.
3) Anaconda Mine and Mill, a copper industry owned by Anaconda Co. near
Sahuarita, Pima-- County, employs 730 men and produces 150 mill Ion
pounds of copper annually. This Industry is located In the drainage
area of the Santa Cruz River, a tributary of the Gila River. No
wastewater is being Intentionally discharged to surface waterways.
- 36-
4) Esperanza Mine and Mill, a copper industry owned and operated by
Duvat- Corp:-" oo" ar" Sah" ui:!" rita in Pima County is also in the drainage
area of the Santa Cruz River. This industry employs approximately
380 men and produces about 55 mill ion pounds of copper annually.
No wastewater is presently being intentionally discharged to surface
waterways.
5) Pima Mine and Mill, a copper industry owned and operated by the Pima
Mining Co;- rn pima County, employs approximately 490 men and pro­duces
approximately 115 million pounds of copper annually. This
industry is located in the drainage area of the Santa Cruz River.
There is no wastewater being intentionally discharged to surface
waterways.
6) Christmas Mine and Mill, a copper industry in Gila County, owned and
operated by Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, employs about
235 men. This mine pumps approximately 2,160,000 gallons per day of
good- grade water from its inactive underground workings. This water
is used for milling operations. Reclamation of water is practiced
until the water reaches the tailings dams. Here excess water, be­yond
that evaporated, is decanted from the dams and flows through
Dripping Springs Wash into the Gila River at a rate of approximately
800 to 900 gallons per minute. This flow has, at times, due to pipe
line breaks, visibly polluted the Gila River with excess sol ids. A
unit of personnel housing at the community of Christmas is sewered
by septic tanks which, so far, have been trouble- free.
7) Magma Mine, Mill and Smelter, a copper industry at Superior, Pinal
Cou" nty · ,-" · owned and openitea- by Magma Copper Co., emp 1oys about 1, 120
men and uses approximately 740,000 gpd of water in the mill and
smelter processes. Al) of this water is reclaimed and reused in the
processes, except for a small quantity expended in bathing and
toilet facil ities for personnel and some families. Disposal of this
domestic wastewater is by septic tank systems, which are experiencing
continuous difficulty. Another minor quantity of water is expended
in sluicing sediment from a settl ing pond for process water. This
infrequent sluicing is done directly into the channel of Queen Creek,
an intermittent stream nearby, tributary to the Gila River.
8) Miami, Copper Cities and Castle Dome units of the Miami Copper Co.
"- industry in the vicinity of Miami, Gila County, employs about 750
men. Leaching operations of the combined units use approximately
7 mgd of water. Milling at the Copper Cities unit requires approx­imately
5.5 mgd. All process water is reclaimed and recirculated
to process use. Domestic sewage at the Copper Cities and Castle
Dome units is discharged into the leaching system; Miami unit sewage
is disposed of in the Miami city sewerage system. There is no dis­charge
of industrial or domestic wastewater to surface waterways.
9) I~_~_ L!"~ tLl:?. tl_" Mlnez ~.!..!.. L and Sme. l~ r, a copper industry near MIami,
Gila County, owned and operated by Inspiration Consol idated Copper
Coo employs about 1,500 men and uses approximately 4.5 mgd of water
- 37-
in the industrial processes together with a minor domestic use~
Total reclamation of process water is practical. Domestic waste­water
from industrial facilities and personnel housing is discharged
to tailings ponds. No wastewater is discharged to surface waterways.
; 0) !: 1orenf. LMin~ L_ Mi11 and Sm_~. L!~ r, a copper industry owned and operated
by Phelps- Dodge Corporation in Greenlee County, employs about 1,900
men and produces approximately 265 million pounds of copper ~ nnually.
The operations utilize about 12.6 mgd of water including minor domes­tic
use. All process water is reclaimed and recirculated to process
use~ Effluent from sewage plants for both domestic and industrial
sewage is introduced into the leaching process. There is no dis­charge
of industrial or domestic wastewater to surface waterways.
11) Kenneco~~_~ 9PP~ I._ fg!~!_ a.! L9~ has~ at present, the following sources
of pollution, both domestic and industrial, contained in the areas
of its operaticn:
a. The community of Ray is now known as the site of present mining
activities for Kennecott and Sonora, in the same region, is
primarily a warehousing area and site of maintenance shops for
the mining operation. Approximately 24,000 tons per day of
copper are processed by a leaching operation at RaYe The collec­tion
system for copper enriched leach water at the base of rock
piles was at one time contaminating Mineral Creek as a result of
excess runoff. ~.' ater reclaimed from the operation is reused in
the leaching process. Staining of Mineral Creek is very evident
at this time and past data indicates there was a very high con­centration
of copper and iron in the effluent escaping the
operation.
b. The maintenance facil ities at Sonora operate a 5,000 gpd package
treatment p! ant for wastes collected in the shop area. The
effluent is discharged to Mineral Creek approximately 5 miles
north of the confluence with the Gila Rivero
Co Hayden is located in Pinal County and has a present population
of approximately 1,800 0 The majority of people in the community
are employed by Kennecott Copper Corporation and the American
Smelting and Refining Companyo Wastewater from Kennecott1s
smelter is discharged to the Gila River and acid effluent from
the acid piant is discharged ta the tailings ponds o Decanted
overflow from the tailings ? onds goes to the Gila River with a
pH of 6.5. American Smelting and Refining Company produces
approximately 15,000 gallons per day of wastewater which is dis­charged
to the tailings ponds used by Kennecott. Domestic wastes
collected in the Town of Hayden are discharged to the tailings
ponds. There is no data available on the actual quantities
however.
12) ~~! LM~ nuel . Q..!. yis} on of Ma~~~ pper Company is located in the communi­ty
of San Manuel. Domestic wastes from the mining operation are dis­posed
of by a septic tank leaching system. Wastes produced at the
- 38-
- 39-
15) . Spreckels Suga~ Company operates a sugar beet processing plant 5
miles south of Chandler. The plant is expected to produce 100 mill ion
pounds of sugar annually. Refinery wastes are treated at the rate of
2.5 mgd by a combination of aerobic and anaerobic lagoons. The efflu­ent
is used entirely for irrigation.
18) Hughes Ai~ craft Co., an industry on the Nogales Highway out of Tucson,
has Individual sewerage systems for domestic and industrial wastes.
The domestic wastes, averaging approximately 3.5 million gallons per
month, are discharged to the municipal sewerage system of the City of
Tucson. The Industrial wastes which average approximately 250,000 gpd
are composed largely of blowdown and cooling overfl~~ and also con­tain
chromes, acids and cyanides. These wastes are treated by chemical
The I:! exce I Corporat ion . at Casa G. rafl£. e produses meta I products that
require industrial plating and cleaning in their manufacture. The
chromate and acid wastes are treated by an industrial waste treat­ment
facility operated by the City of Casa Grande. At present the
faci1 ity is experiencing some operational problems, resulting in the
addition of chromates and very caustic wastes to the domestic sewage
collection system.
Silver Bell Mine and Mill, owned and operated by the American Smelt­ing
and Refining Company · , is located on Brawly Wash approximately 25
miles west of Marana. The company employs approximately 325 people
and produces 81.6 million pounds of copper annually. Approximately
2.8 mgd of fresh water is added to the system daily. This represents
20% of the total water demand. The remaining 80% is obtained through
recirculation. There is no discharge of industrial or domestic
wastewater to surface waterways.
14)
mill and smelter are disposed of by the domestic sewage treatment
facil ity operated for the community. Mining operational wastes
from the mill and smelter go to a thickener where the sludge goes
to the tail ings ponds and the supernatant is recycled through the
operation. Eighty ( 80) percent of the tailings ponds water Is r~ cycled
back into the mining operation by the use of settling tanks. There
have been no reports of leaching wastes in this area reaching the
San Pedro River. A dally loss of 5.6 mgd has been reported at the
mining operation by seepage and evaporation.
16) Artley Incorporated of_ Arizon?, a flute manufacturing plant, is
located six miles north of Nogales along U. S. Highway 89. Approx­imately
4,000 gallons per day of domestic and industrial wastes are
treated through an aerobic- type package plant, with the chlorinated
effluent disposed of by absorption fields.
17) The Western Meat Packi~ ompany, located in Pima County along the
Santa Cruz River, approximately 12 miles north of Tucson on U. S.
Highway 84, discharges approximately 5,000 gallons per day of slaughter­house
waste to a 1/ 2 acre stabil ization pond. All blood wastes and
paunch manure is separated and not allowed into the pond. Inspections
indicate the pond is satisfactorily treating all wastes with acceptable
effluent discharge into the Santa Cruz River.
treatment followed by disposal by evaporation and percolation from
a holding pond.
The preceding outl ined sources of pollution in the Gila River drainage basin are
known sources, having been compiled from information on file, information re­ceived
through interviews and personal knowledge on the part of the writers and
may not be all inclusive. There may be other minor or major sources of pollution
not mentioned in the preceding outl ine. Among these are:
1) Highway rest stations
2) Motels and trailei parks
3) Semi- public resort facil ities
4) Private schools
5) Agricultural labor camps
6) Job Corp camps
7) Mil itary installations
8) National Forest Service units
9) National Parks
10) National Monuments
11) Indian communities
12) Remote subdivisions
13) Dairy farms and related industries
14) Small scale cattle feedlots
15) Produce handl ing facil ities and packing sheds
16) Miscellaneous recreational areas
~ atu~ I Sources__ gLSa I i! 1 i.! Y... J!]._.!-~~._ Qll?--. B. l v~ E Bas I!:!-: The so i 1s and rocks of the
Gila River Basin are the largest sources of sal inity in river water, and little
can be done about this source except good water management practice in all phases
of water use and improvements in river control structures. There are several spot
sources of sal inity, however, that should be, and are being, investigated for
possible control. Both the Mogollon Rim and Natanes Rim regions have many springs
that feed to the Gila River System. These regions essentially comprise the north­east
section of the Gila River System drainage area. Many of these springs dis­charge
hot, highly mineral ized water ( 13). The major ones with some data avail­able
are as follows:
a. Cl ifton Hot Springs - These springs on the San Francisco River near
CI ifton ' dlscharge-- approximately 1,000 gallons of hot water per min­ute,
and contain approximately 9,000 mg/ l TDS. Hem ( 13) estimated
these springs contribute about 50 tons of dissolved sol ids per day.
Since some of the springs discharge to the river under the water
surface, the exact contribution is unknown.
b. White River Salt Springs - These springs are located near the j~ nc­tion
wltiithesJack'-- Rlver, as shown on Plate 1. The combined flow
of the obvious springs is approximately 950 gallons per minute with
a TDS of about 8,500 mgtl. Additional volumes of salts are dis­charged
in this area from undetermined springs.
c. Salt_. BankU. n the SaH.__ Ri\ l~ r~~ nYQr'_" The contribution of salts
reach ing the Sa1t Ri ve r from th t 5 source is not prec i se 1y known.
Earlier estimates { 15} placed the total at 140 tons per day, but
- 40-
this figure has not been substantiated. The springs in the area
contain 24,000 to 36,000 mgtl TDS, but the spring discharge rate
is small. More investigation must be made to determine the exact
contribution.
d. Verd~. JioLwl.! 1g~ - These spr ings issue from vol can icrocks, con­tarn
about 3,000 mgtl TDS and 7.2 mgt) of boron, but the flow is
small ( about 10 gallons per minute).
e. Mi nera I ~! M--!?~. lQ!:'! CoQl. J~ J2..? m - Th i s spr i ng discharges mIner-al
ized water a few hundred feet bel~ v Coolidge Dam on the Gila River.
Exact data on this spring is unavailable.
- 41-
7- 0 RATIONALE FOR WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
7- 1 General: Each beneficial water use requires certain indicators of water
qual ity as desirable or essential. Pertinent indicators are investigated for
adequate protection of each beneficial use. Water qual ity objectives are formu­lated
in consideration of these indicators, and effects upon the economy of the
area which may result from various levels of control. Where more than one level
of an indicator is under consideration in the protection of various beneficial
uses, preferential selection is given to that level which represents the superior
water quai ity.
The most important water qual ity indicators for the various ben~ ficial uses of
water covered by this pol icy are thoroughly discussed in Sections 7- 2 through
7- 6 of the Ari_~ na __ Water:._.! 4.. uaJ i~ Y... i£ f1.! r. QL~ J) cy for Colorado River in Ar. j~~ na.
The indicators are equally applicable to the Gila River System, and will not be
repeated in this document.
- 42-
The following references were utilized in preparation of this policy document.
I. Arizona Revised Statutes L Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 16.
2. ( Federal) Water Po! 1ution Control Act, Public Law 660, as amended by PL 87- 88,
PL 89- 234,- and PL 89- 753.
4. Water Quality CriteriE, California State Water Quality Control Board PublIca­tion
No. 3- A, 1963.
5. ~ icu1tural \ 4aste Waters, \. Jater Resources Center, Univ. of Calif., Report
No. 10, 1966.
6. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962, HEW, Public Health
Se rv i ee .--------.----------.-.....-----.-
7. Standard Methods for the Examiniation of Water and WastewateLL- American Publ ie
Hea 1thAssoc iat ion, 12 th - Edlti on:- · _-
8. Quality of Surface Waters of the United ~ tates~ U. S. G. S. Water Supply Papers,
( 1941 et. seq.)
9. Water Resources Data for. Arizona, Part I, Surface Water Records, ( 1961 et. seq),
U. S. G. S.
10. Globe Equity No. 59, United States vs. Gila Valley Irrigation District, et al.,
Decree entered June 29, 1935.
11. Kent Decree, No. 45- 64, Hurley & United States vs. Charles F. Abbot and 4800
others.
12. Quality of Water of the Gila River Basi~~ bove. Coolidge Dam Arizona, W. S. P.
1104, U. S. Geological Survey.
13. Reconnaissance. of Headwater~ rin~ in the. Gi~ Biver Drainage Basin, Arizona,
W. S. P. 16l9- H, U. S. Geological Survey.
14. Quality of Arizona Irrigation Waters, Smith, H. V., Draper, G. E., and Fuller,
W. H., Report 223, 1964, Agricultural Experiment Station, Univ. of Arizona.
15. Quality of Arizona Domestic Waters, Smith, H. V. et at, Report 217, t963,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Univ. of Arizona.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 7
USGS Stat ion and WATER VEAR ( A.~ r~- feet1. .. , . ._.
Locat ion MO. - r961---- · · --- T § 62 ----- j § 63- 1964 1965
4440- San'Franclsco--- · - O · - · '--- Z: 5} b- · · · -- · · .. · --- I; 746---- · ------ 2; 490.. ------------ 2~ 850 ---- 1-, 550
River near Glenwood N 1,300 2,850 1,790 2,090 1,400
New Mexico D 1,140 7,150 2,640 1,950 1,700
J 1,140 6,500 2,170 1,590 3,870
F 970 24,990 4,630 1,150 3,940
M 1,360 7,900 2,480 786 5,760
A 1,380 16,880 2,970 668 7,520
M 1,270 4,350 1,620 881 3,140
J 909 1,410 824 794 1,250
J 909 1,460 813 3,380 4,070
A 2,040 966 6,000 5,480 3,580
__~_ 4,080 2,120 4,530 9,790 3,230
\ 4. V.- r9~ 070 --.--.- 79, 320---------- 32 ~ 96o-' ---- Jr; Ifl cj'-- 1fr; ofo
44~ 9~ Wil1ow Creek 0 152 57
Diversion from N
Black River D
J
F
M 271 360 331 336
A 482 768 795 715
M 222 929 1+ 63 1- 976
J 68 797 1,250
J 216 949 242 799
A 228 983 171 1,090
s 200 172 1,020
W. V • - r; 840--------~ 020-~ · --- 1,589------ 41- 3---- 6, 290--
._-_.... -----_._,-~_ .._.--- ._-~----~--~-- ...._._--_.--_.
4470- Eagle Creek 0 1,610 1,200 5,390 3,050 1,740
above pumping N 832 2,700 651 1,690 1,420
plant, near 0 856 7,640 1,070 1,310 996
Morenci, Arizona J 938 6,630 1,310 901 1,760
F 812 7 p 340 8,840 757 2,500
M 886 4,630 1,970 1,040 4,360
A 1,220 3,480 1,470 1,410 2,680
M 1,080 1,540 1,270 1,260 1,650
J 742 1,050 930 1, 190 1,600
J 1,060 1,430 1,780 6,050 1,940
A 1,570 1,140 8,320 3,140 2,770
S 1,710 1,560 ___~} 7. Q.-.-_ 2,700 1 310
W. Y~ 13-; 320 ----' 40,340 37,370 2ZiO, 500 ---~ 730'
._---- .._-----~---_._--_._-
4445- 5an Francisco 0 6,840 4,780 18,520 14,970 3,4] 0
River at Cl ifton N 3,040 14,100 4,110 6,400 2,920
0 3,290 41,710 6,740 4,740 3,450
J 4,180 24,810 8,860 3,850 10,120
F 3,350 58,160 20,930 3,180 10, J20
M 4,000 16,840 9,660 3,100 13,460
A 4,090 32,180 10,680 4,150 J7,030
M 2,450 10,040 4,470 2,640 8,310
J 1,920 2,580 1,850 1,430 2,450
J 2,050 4,570 3,400 12,420 5,900
A 5,260 3,040 34,200 13,210 9,060
S 10,530 21,310 18 390 13 210 5 320
W. V. - 51,000 234,100 14 f; ioo ------ mOo · -----~ O
-----------------------------------
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2 of 7
WATER YEAR ( Acre- feet)
~ 10. -- 1961------- 1962-- · 1963 ' 1964-'-- · 196" 5---
o 6,39.- 0----.------ 3-, 2'- f1O- --.-- ----,, 0-;, 9;- 3- 0-.----.---. 5-,- 9- 9-- 0--- --- · · ,--- · ---, 89-- 3- 0------
N 4,460 7,680 5,880 6,070 4,490
D 4,490 24,820 15,150 5,340 5,920
J 5,940 28,000 12,180 5,190 7,270
F 4,940 54,520 29,850 4,510 9,230
M 5,290 15,920 10,340 4,290 18,870
A 5,530 35,920 10,470 3~ 620 11,130
M 2,040 10,850 4.920 2,350 6,100
J 1,760 2,280 995 833 1,870
J 2, 180 7,320 1,160 3, , 20 5,840
A 6,560 13,740 18,260 5,580 8,980
S 3,540 12,420 25,180 20,520 7,660
VJ • Y. 5~ T20-- · ----- 2~ O -- · · ----- llfJ~ 300~ 7~- 416--- · ------ 96:- 290-----
21,160 8,390
11,240 7.030
10,840 8,030
11 , 140 17,740
8,140 22,020
6,640 30,150
6,330 26,090
4 ,320 13, 170
2,160 3,250
19,700 10,980
28,670 19,160
33 ,069 ---- lL_ Z80_"_...
163,400 183,800
251 101 117
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 75
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
50 2,900 3,870
2,600 1,480 2,620
239 4 130 867 ----=--=- l------- rr~ · ----------- ..
3,1~ 0 0,610 7,550
--_.~----------_.._--_._-----
307
51
o
69
oo
ooo
1,170
o
2,300
-- 3"; 900----
6,710 26,350
23,730 9,030
62,010 21,450
57,320 21,300
105,300 54,210
36,820 22,110
66,520 18,760
20,680 9,170
4,830 2,740
9,110 4,510
14,620 52,310
____ 3_ 6:. J..: 9:!. 70 4- 4:.. L4: 00 _
444,700 286,300
27
o
o1o
oooo
1,880
17,320
1,500
20,730
10,940
5,000
6,420
9,080
8,040
6,730
7,370
3,610
2,540
3,950
13,010
13,720
90,410
3,620 1,, 60 5,940 4,~ 90 2,930
J ,740 5,770 4,320 4,920 2,420
2,730 20,210 13,610 4,630 3,920
4,550 22,440 12,340 5,600 6

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

STATE OF ARI- ZONA
WATER QUALITY CONTROL COUNCIL
Tentative
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
GILA RIVER SYSTEM IN ARIZONA
I'HR,£ f~ NENT FILE COpy
,-,.: A c~ (;; a - Y' / ~
...~;
RECEIVED
JUN 14 1967
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
FORE~ JORD
The purpose of this policy statement, in addition to the
obvious purpose of endeavoring to preserve and enhance the
quality of the Gila River System water, is to formulate and
adopt a water quality control policy document for Arizona
as required under the following State and Federal Acts:
I. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
2. Arizona Revised Statutues, Chapter 16, Article I.
\ Jhile these statutes are essentially designed towards the
same endeavor, terms and definitions used therein may differ
somewhat. Specifically, the water quality criteria and im­plementationand
enforcement elanscalledfor- fnthe Federa'l
Act--' are-- presen- EecTln- thls pol icy document ast:{ aters Contro Il~ Q,
'- later Quality Objectives, Neasures to Achieve \ later Quality
DblectT, ves -~- andTmp lement atlon- 0 f Ob jec.! Jv~~,:-,-, fIle-' supportl ng
data required by the Federal Act is supplied in Description of
~~~~. and Find i ngs, Be~~ f.!.£!~ l.... lV~~~~,_~,~~? ,. ~ o_~, e._~ r:~!~_ C t~~-;- and
Ra tiona Ie f9..!:... \- Ja t~..:._ QuaL!., tY.. Ebj ect i ves.
Although the Gila River System is essentially isolated from
the Colorado River System by river control and diversion for
beneficial consumptive use, the Gila River System is still
within the Colorado River Basin. The Guidelines for Formulat­L~
g_,~ 1~! f;!'_ Ql: I~ lLtr..~~ a n~ c!~, rd s for~~ lJJ.!~!:..~ t.@!.~ Wat~ i- s- or'the­Colorad~~
jy~~_ Syste~ ( appended to the Colorado River Pol icy
Document) are therefore followed in this policy where applic­able.
lfflli OOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTy • } ' l(' 00
1 0' THa ~ UMB£" ' J.. ) CJ'..,;
DEPARTMENT OF
UBRAHYANPARCHIVES RIC~ IV£ D ~ \ M _... i
- ARIZONA - APR t:. '; j1. U I
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
for
GILA RIVER SYSTEM
1- 0 WATERS CONTROLLED
~ This Water Qual ity Control Pol icy appl ies to the waters of the Gila River System
in Arizona. The Gila River System drainage area is shown on Plate 1. A schematic
of the system is shown on Plate 2.
1- 2 Interstate Waters of the Gila R~ ver ? y~ tem: The following streams are inter­state
streams for purposes of the Water Qua) ity Act of 1965:
a. Qila-. Blver - T:- ie Gil", River enters Arizona frcr: J New I>! exico, and remains
an interstate stream until completely diverted for beneficial use at
Ashurst- Hayden Damn The portion of the river from this dam to its
confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma is essentially a dry wash,
and stream standards are meaningless.
b. San Francisco R: vei - The San Francisco River starts in Arizona, flows
through New Mexico and back Into Ar! zona. It is an interstate stream
throughout its course.
c& San Simon River - The San Simon River is technically an interstate
stream because of minor intermittent flows from New Mexico.
d. San Pedro River - The head. mters of the San Pedro
and the river is technically an Jnterstate stream
is very erratic with some completely dry periods.
flow data is shown in Exhibit 1.
River are in Mexico,
although the flow
USGS Station 4705
e. Santa Cruz River - The headwaters of the Santa Cruz River are in
ArIzona, but the river flows through a portion of Mexico before re­entering
Arizona on its way to join the Gila River, and is therefore
an interstate stream. Flow, as seen in USGS Stations 4800, 4805,
4820 and 4890, Exhibit 1, Is very erratic, and the river is dry
throughout most of its course.
1- 3 Illtrastate Waters of the Gila Rive!__ System: The following streams are intra­state
streams for purposes of the Water Qual ity Act of 1965 since they do not con­tribute
any sustained flow across any Arizona border:
a. £ pg1e Creek
b. San Carlos River
c. Mineral Creek
d. Queen Creek
e. Salt River
f. Verde River
g. New River
h. ~ gua Fria River
i. Hassayampa RIver
j. Centennial Wash
k. Miscellaneous creeks and washes which contribute minor amounts of
intermittent flow to the GIla River or its major tributaries.
- 1-
I
I
I I:- ------ ---
- - - GI LA RIVER SYSTEM DRA I NAGE AREA
;- Ex i sti ng Dam
- if- Proposed Dam
PLATE I
GILA RIVER SYSTEM
UTAH I
- -- ARIZONA- -- --------- t
. I I
I
I I I
. I ~ l
/,./ 1
.' I I
I Y
GJ
r >
1J : JJ
< r [ Tl
: JJ » ( f)
-<
(-- f1) - I
[ Tl
: 5: f11 ( f)
0 : r:
[ Tl
: 5: » N
-- 1 -
0
0<
Z 0 o U
N ­-
X
0:: w
0< ~
I
II
-- 11-,--
--~
Dam
MEXICO
Morelos Dam
ARIZONA
,
~ I:~
-. Jx
o< w
U:: 2:
4420)[ 70,840J
4485)[ 180,700J
Laveen( 4795)[ 203J
Santa Cruz R.
4890)[ 939J
aU)
co Q) I
Tucsoro :: ro I
( 4825)[ 935 ~' i
Gil! esp i eDam Gil a Bend i rr i g.
5195)[ 804J { i2,906J
Painted Rock Dam
( 5198)[ 882J
Dome( 5205)[ 279J
4585)[ 118,900J
Calva( 4665)[ 90,960J
San Carlos Res. ( 4690)[- 34,830J
Coo I i dge Dam
4695)[ 122,000J
San Pedro R. ( 4710)[ 16 140
4734)[ 16,240J
San Simon R. ( 4570)[ 7
Buttes Damsite
Ashurst- Hayden
( 4750) ...--------.
[ 134,400
Virden( 4320)[ 96,290J
[ 18,840J Duncan- Virden - - - - Valley ( 4325)
San Carlos R.
( 4685)[ 24,550_
Imperial Dam
Saffor
Va II ey
( 4490)
[ 104,738J
I
I
I
P~ oenix
-) t
L __ · 3
Hassayampa R.
' 5155)[ 22,050J
ARIZ NA
CALIFORNiA
Glenwood( 4440)[ 41,010J
NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA
New
Salt River
Frla R.
SALT RIVER
VALLEY USE
See Plate
Granite
Wadde I I Dam
( 5135)[+ 45,840J
rado River
rlr------
a Roosevelt
g Horse Mesa
~ g Mormon Flat
~ ~ Stewart Mountain Dam
~ LJ ( 5020) [ 203,200
( 51 I 3) 625 600
Verde River
1
\.--+-.,....;~ 4; t,:; 4u5~ 01. J) J.[~ 6~,. 2... L9~ 0l. LJ.. J,;: I.""~ S;;..:; a:.:. n;....:.. F..:.. r.::: a..!.: n.::: c..:.. i ;;;:. sc::::. o:::.....:..:.:.-~~~. J..,;;;..:... L.:::...!..::::. r-+ l
4905)[ 336,000J
4940)[ 192, IOOJ
WATER YEAR
Legend
1965
~~~ rseshoe
l!"\ ..
g = Bartlett
U"\+
~ U
White
( 4320) USGS Gage Station
( 9- before each no.)
[ 279]- Flow at Station
Acre- feet/ year
-+- Existing Dam
~ Proposed Dam
2- 0 DESCRIPTION OF AREA AND FINDINGS
2- 1 The Main Stem of the Gila River: The gross watershed of the Gila River
Syst'em- upst- reamofDome~ Arizo;; a- Cf2-' inilesupstream of the confluence with the
Colorado River} is approximately 57,477 square miles, excluding all closed basins
upstream. The main stem of the Gila River upstream of the last U. S. Geological
Survey gaging station in New Mexico near Virden ( 16 miles upstream of the New
Mexico- Arizona border) has a drainage area of 3,203 square miles. There are no
major control structures on the Gila River in New Mexico, although Hooker Dam has
been proposed. The watershed of the Gila River System in Arizona is shown in
Plate I.
The Gila River enters Arizona near Duncan, flows through Duncan Valley, is joined
by the San Francisco River near Clifton, and flows westward through Safford Valley
to the San Carlos Reservoir behind Cool idge Dam, the first major control structure
on the river. Vater released from Coolidge Dam flows westward through remote
mountain country until it reaches the San Pedro Valley where the San Pedro River
joins the Gila River. The combined rivers flow through more remote mountains past
the Buttes Damsite to Ashurst- Hayden Dam near Florence.
All of the water reaching Ashurst- Hayden Dam, with the exception of rare flood
flows, are diverted for beneficial use in the San Carlos Project. Sluicing of
the heavy sediment load at Ashurst- Hayden Dam has been replaced by mechanical
sediment removal equipment, so there is essentially no flow in the Gila River
below this dam. All of the water in the Gila River above Ashurst- Hayden Dam is
apportioned under the Globe Equity rIo. 59 Decree of June 29, 1935 ( 10). The pro­visions
of that Decree are enforced by the Gila Water Commissioner appointed by
the Arizona District Court of the United States.
The Gila River below Ashurst- Hayden Dam is situated in an arid desert area. In­tense
desert storms contribute some flow to the Gila River at infrequent intervals
for short periods of time. There are small diversion dams near Olbera ( Sacaton
Diversion Dam) and Gila Crossing before the Salt River joins the Gila- River near
Avondale. Annual flow data for Water Year 1965 at various points on the Gila
River are shown on Plate 2.
The Salt River System contributes very little water to the Gila River because of
upstream use. This facet is discussed in Section 2- 2 under tributaries to the
Gil a Rive r.
Almost all of the water which accumulates in the Gila River below Ashurst- Hayden
Dam is again diverted at Gillespie Dam for irrigation. Except for storm flows
and gate leakage at the dam, there is no surface flow between Gillespie Dam and
Painted Rock Dam approximately 60 miles downstream. Painted Rock Dam was com­pleted
in 1959 as a flood control dam to protect the Yuma area from flash floods
following intense desert rainstorms.
Below Painted Rock Dam, the Gila River channel is dry except for occasional storm
flows. Irrigation drainage water from the Wellton- Mohawk Valley has contributed
some flow at Dome ( 12 miles upstream from the confluence of the Gila River with
the Colorado River) in the past, but the new drainage system completed in 1961 has
steadily decreased the contribution.
- 2-
In addition to the annual flow data for Water Year 1965 presented in Plate 2, flow
data at various points in the Gila River System is given in Exhibit I.
2- 2 Tributaries to the Gila River: There are numerous tributaries to the Gila
R:" Tver" in the 508 river miles between the New Mexico- Arizona boundary and the
confluence with the Colorado River near Yuma. Flow data for the major tribu­taries
is given for t. Jater Year 1965 on Plate 2, and expanded flow data is pre­sented
in Exhibit I. Descriptions of the significant tributaries are as follows:
a. San Francisco River - The San Francisco River has its headwaters in
Arizona near Alpine. It flows eas~ ward through Luna Lake into New
Mexico and back into Arizona northeast of Clifton. The gross drain-age
area of the San Francisco River above the last gaging station near
Clifton ( 9.9 miles upstream from mouth) is 2,766 square miles. The salt
load of the San Francisco River varies with the flow rate. Available
data shows the TDS ( Total Dissolved Sol ids) load ranges from 200 to
1200 mg/ l. Diversions are made for mining, municipal and irrigation use
upstream of the confluence with the Gila River. The Clifton Hot Springs
is a source of salt which degrades the water quality of the river.
b. Eagle Creek - Eagle Creek drains a 377 square mile area on the north
side'- of the Gila River. In addition, water is pumped into Eagle Creek
from the Black River in the Salt River watershed. A large portion of the
water flowing in Eagle Creek is diverted by pumping for industrial and
municipal use in and near Morenci and Clifton. The water is of excellent
quality.
c. San Simon River - The San Simon River drains a 2,192 square mile area in
the San Simon Valley. There are some minor intermittent flows from New
Mexico into the valley. The San Simon River joins the Gila River between
Solomon and Safford. There is very little rainfall in this drainage
basin, and the river usually flows only during storm periods, and
available data shows a TDS load of 500 to 900 mg/ I in the flood water.
The sediment load is also high. Flood flows are partly regulated by six
flood control detention structures.
d. San Carlos River - The San Carlos River drains a 1,027 square mile area
northerS- anCar! os Reservoi r. Although the 36- year average discharge
of this tributary is 32,070 acre- feet per year, there are periods of no
flow each year. The meager data on quality indicates fair quality during
high flows to poor quality during low flows.
e. San Pedro River - The San Pedro River drains an area of 4,449 square
mile'S: of which 696 sqt.< are miles are in Mexico. The first gaging station
in Arizona is near PaJominas, approximately 4.5 miles from the Arizona­Mexico
border. The total flow at this point has averaged 21,000 acre­°
feetot 2p2e, r00y0eacrufboicr tfheeet 2p3e- yr esaercornedcor( dc, fsb). ut Dthievefrlsoiwonsraatebovheas Cvhaarrileedstofrno, m
where a dam is proposed as a part of the Central Arizona Project, are
mostly by groundwater pumping. Downstream of Charleston, surface flow
decreases. Diversions, both by surface flow and groundwater pumping, are
made for irrigation, domestic and industrial use. The San Pedro River
Joins the Gila River near Winkelman. Quality records on the San Pedro
- 3-
River are poor. Records of qual ity on the Gila River at Kelvin, 17
miles downstream of the confluence Is the best Index available.
f. Mineral Creek - Mineral Creek drains approximately 98 square miles of
area north of the Gila River at Kelvin. This creek was named Mineral
Creek in 1846 by a military scouting party because of its sal ine
qual ities and brown color. The flow varies from zero to approximately
30,000 cfs. There is one flood control structure which has silted up
and Is no longer effective. Another structure is being considered. A
large open pit copper mine is situated on this creek, and the natural
channel is being replaced to allow for mine expansion. Quality of the
water in this creek is discussed under potential sources of pollution.
g_ Queen Creek - Queen Creek drains a desert foothills area north of the
Gila River, and flow 15 restricted to periods of heavy rainfall, usually
during the summer and fall. The flow is controlled by Whitlow Dam, and
it is doubtful if any surface flow would ever reach the Gila River.
h. Santa Cruz River - The Santa Cruz River drains 8,581 square miles before
it reaches the Gila River near Laveen. There is a 348 square mile drain­age
area in Mexico. The 23- year record shows an average annual flow at
the mouth of 14,550 acre- feet, with nCl flow at all for the majority of
the time. There was a measured flow during 54 days of the 1965 water
year, and 6~' of the flow occurred during 3 days. There are many
diversions, mostly by groundwater pumping, for Irrigation, municipal and
industrial use.
i. Salt River System- The Salt River System physically joins the Gila River
~ ystem west of Laveen. The Salt River ' System includes the Salt and
Verde Rivers and their tributaries. The Salt and Verde River flow is
controlled by dams except for periods of extreme flooding ( the capacity
has been exceeded only twice since 1941), and essentially all of the
flow is diverted for irrigation, municipal and industrial use at Granite
Reef Diversion Dam east of Phoenix. The Salt River Valley area, Includ­ing
parts of the water distribution system, is shown on Plate 3. There
are 13,000 square miles of drainage area above Granite Reef Dam. The
water in the Salt River System is adjudicated under the Kent Decree ( II).
There is very little contribution of surface water to the Gila River
System by the Salt River System. Irrigation return flow, mostly excess
diversion, is utilized in the immediate area. There Is considerable
groundwater pumping In the area. There is a sewage effluent flow to the
Salt River from Phoenix, and complete reclamation of this sewage
effluent for reuse Is being studied.
J. ~ gua Frla River - The Agua Fria River drains an area of 1,459 square
miles upstream of Waddell Dam. All of the water is diverted for irrIga­tion
use by the Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District
No. I before it reaches the Gila River. The average flow for the 37- year
record period Is 59,440 acre- feet per year.
- 4-
- 5-
Pumping of groundwater began in the 1920' 5 and became widespread throughout the
basin by about 1940.
1. Centennia, l \~.'!?_~ - Centennial Wash joins the Gila River just upstream of
Gillespie Dam. Flow consists of storm runoff, and the record is extremely
poor.
small tributaries to the
It is beyond the scope of
Any problems caused by
of pollution.
Miscellaneous TrLbu~ aries - There are numerous
Gila River, most of them intermittent in flow.
this policy document to discuss each of them.
these tributaries are discussed under sources
m.
k. Hassayampa River - The Hassayampa River drains an area of 1,470 square
miles before it reaches the Gila River upstream of Gillespie Dam. The
average flow for the 19- year record at Box Damsite near Wickenburg is
7,820 acre- feet per year, with many periods of no flow. There are
diversions for irrigation and mining operations along the river. The
river below Wickenburg is alternately wet and dry, and most diversions
are by groundwater pumping. Flow records at the confluence with the
Gila River are very poor, but the total flow in the Gila as measured at
Gillespie Dam indicates negligible contribution from the Hassayampa.
2- 3 HistorY, of the_ 911.. E,.- Rl~ er,~~ 2. lD.: Part of the area of the Gila River Basin was
ceded to the United States in 1848 after the Mexican War and the southern areJ was
included in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. In 1870, valuable mineral deposits were
found in the area of Cl if ton, and this area is now one of the most important copper
producing areas in the United States.
The first irrigation of the land in the basin above the Coolidge Dam area was begun
about 1872 by Mexican immigrants and Mormon pioneers in the Safford Valley, and ir­rigation
in the Duncan- Virden Valley followed shortly. Below the Cool idge Dam
area, early development centered around agriculture. The Hohokam Indians irrigJted
lands more than a thousand years ago. This civilization vanished. Irrigation
practIces were resumed in the lower Gila and Salt River valleys by subsequent
Indian inhabitants at dates unknown and by non- Indian settlers in the 1860' s.
Varying flows made irrigated agriculture a very risky affair, and storage systems
were planned. Picacho Reservoir was built for irrigation storage water in 1890.
The Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 paved the way for construction of many more
storage dams for irrigation water. The Salt River Valley Water Users' Association,
the first organization of its kind formed to take advantage of the act, was incor­porated
in 1903. Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River was begun in 1905 and completed
in 1911. More dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers followed. Cool idge Dam on the
Gila River was completed in 1928 by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Gillespie Dam
on the Gila River was completed as a private venture in 1921 to irrigate 10,000
acres in the Gila Bend and Theba Areas, but this area has suffered from a shortage
of water. The remainder of the Gila River Valley has sparse irrigation except for
the area around Wellton and Yuma served with Colorado River water.
The surface storage system was developed primarily for agriculture, but domestic
and industrial needs are now also supplied. The use of water in Arizona, espe­cially
surface water, is covered by legal water rights. Expanding population and
changes from a strictly agricultural and mining economy have caused many water prob­lems.
~:- 4 MajorQ. lver~ L~~?.. Jro~.-!. he G~ ive!"_..?. · ( stem: As described in 2- 1, all of the
water in the mainstream Gila River, from a point ten miles upstream from the east­ern
boundary of Arizona to the Gila Crossing ( near the confluence of the Salt and
Gila Rivers), is allocated under the Globe Equity Decree. The San Pedro River
water has not been adjudicated. There are numerous withdrawals of water from these
rivers upstream of Ashurst- Hayden Dam both by surface diversion and by pumping
by groundwater. The Globe Equity Decree provided for irrigation diversions of
1/ 80 of a cubic foot per second per acre of land, with a total of 6 acre- feet for
each acre annually. The following are the major diversions from the Gila River:
a. Q!:! fl.£.@.~-:- Jli1:: de..! 2. ValJ,~ - The decreed area for' irrigation in this valley in
both New Mexico and Arizona is 8,061 acres. 8etween 8,000 and 20,000
acre- feet per year has been diverted during the past five years, and the
additional water required has been pumped from the groundwater. Almost
all of the return flow to the river is subsurface.
b. Safford V~ 8y - The decreed area for irrigation in the Safford Valley is
32,512 acres. Water is diverted through thirteen canal systems, and
supplemental water is diverted by pumping, both from the river and from
the groundwater. The diversion from the river during the last five years
has varied from 39,630 to 104,700 acre- feet per year depending on the
river yield. Most domestic water is suppl ied by pumping from the ground­water.
c. ~,~ r~~ rlo~_ Proj~ ct_- The decreed area for irrigation in this project is
100,546 acres. There are two sections to this project-- the ! Ilndian
Lands" and the "\-/ hite Lands! l as given in the Gila Equity Decree. The
acreage is approximately equal. Surface, flow is supplemented by pumping
from the groundwater. The diversion from the river has ranged from
42,450 to 247,820 acre- feet per year during the past five years. There
is some storage on the project in the Picacho Reservoir. Domestic needs
in the area are served by pumping from the groundwater.
d. Miscellaneous Diversions - There are numerous diversions for irrigation,
domestic and industrial uses along the river. These uses are covered in
the Gila Equity Decree.
2-, 5 Econ_ omy an, d N~ tu!:.~_ J .... Reso~!::£. C:?_ C? f t~~._.~_ U a.._.~ L.\ f~ E.,.,,?,' y_~_~ em: The economy of the
entire area of the Gila ~ iver System is limited by the water supply. The economy
and natural resources discussed in Section 2- 8 of the Colorado River Water Qual ity
Control Policy appl ies equally to the Gila River System, and will not be repeated
except to emphasize that the Central Arizona Project is vitally needed to sustain
the economy and preserve the qual ity of the water now available.
2- 6 \ Jater Qual. llLf2. nsi5! erations: TilE QUALITY AND QUANTITY FACTORS OF THE WATER
SUPPLY OF THE GILA RIVER SYSTEM ARE SO INTER- RELATED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
SEPARATE THESE PARAMETERS. The flow data on the main stem of the Gila River and
its tributaries for the 1965 Water Year is shown schematically on Plate 2 and
expanded for other years in Exhibit I to illustrate the variable flow parameters.
The variable flow in the Gila River is due mainly to storm runoff which carries a
considerable silt load. Flow from the Gila River is first controlled at the
- 6-
San Carlos Reservoir which acts as a silt control works. Water released from
Cool idge Dam is relatively clear, but inflow from the San Pedro River and other
tributaries is uncontrolled, and the silt load at Ashurst- Hayden Dam is again
appreciable, causing silt control problems in the San Carlos Project. The silt
load requires constant canal cleaning and prevents a canal I ining program vital
to water conservation. Buttes Dam, when authorized and built, will reduce the
silt load in the canals so that a 1ining program wi II be feasible.
The variable flow rates also contribute to the sal inity problem. In general, the
salt concentration increases as the flow decreases, but the watersheds of different
tributaries contribute different quantities and types of salts. To illustrate, the
Total Dissolved Sol ids ( TDS) and sodium concentrations in the Gila River water
at Kelvin are plot: ed against flow rate in Plate 4 for the 1962 to 1964 period.
The different pattern of the data for the total salt content and single ion content
illustrates the effect of different watersheds on the qual ity of water.
The TDS content of the water entering Arizona in both the Gila and San Francisco
Rivers historically varies between 200 and 500 mgtl. The fluoride content has
been consistently high, normally above one ( I) mgtl even in periods of high
flooding ( 6). The fluoride content of many of the groundwaters of the entire Gila
River Basin is high, probably due to redeposition of these salts washed downstream
from the upper basin. The groundwater in the Duncan- Virden Valley varies from
very low to over 5000 mgtl of dissolved salts, and some salt load is added to the
Gila River water before it is joined by the San Francisco River.
The CI if ton- Morenci area contributes considerable salt to the San Francisco River,
some from solution pick- up from the saline soils and some from the highly miner­al
ized hot springs. Long term continuous data on qual ity is not available for
this area.
Downstream of the confluence of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers, the tributaries
contain varying salt loads. Eagle and Bonita Creek water contains about 300 mgtl
of salts. The San Simon River contributes water with a TDS of 500- 900 mgtl during
flood stage. There are some artesian flo~ JS in the Safford Valley which contribute
a variety of salts to the Gila River flow. The groundwater in the Safford Valley
is generally highly mineral ized.
The San Carlos Reservoir acts somewhat as an equal izing reservoir for the salt
content of the Gila River water, but downstream flow is again influenced by hot
springs and runoff from other watersheds as seen in Plate 4. By the time the
water reaches Kelvin, the TDS load varies between 400 and 2000 mg/ l. Generally
speaking, the TDS load is below 1000 mgtl if the flow remains above 200 cubic feet
per second.
Very little quality data exists for flows below Kelvin. Except for occasional
flood flows, all of the water reaching Ashurst- Hayden Dam ( 19.5 miles below Kelvin)
is diverted for use in the San Carlos Project, and there is no return flow to the
river as a surface stream. The proposed Buttes Dam, in addition to its function
as a silt control structure, would contain the flood flows which enter the Gila
below Coolidge Dam, particularly from the San Pedro River. There is considerable
groundwater pumping in the area, and the Central Arizona Project is needed in this
area for supplemental water and quality control.
- 7-
o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0
1'\ 7 III
000
000
000
1'\ 7 III
oo
o
N
oo
o
N
ooo
ooo
o 0 0 o 0 0
1'\ "'!" III
o 0 0 o 0 0
f'Il 7 III
o
o
N
oo
N
PLATE 4
o
o
oo
SALT CONTENT VARIATION WITH FLOW
1962- 1964
GILA RIVER AT KELVIN
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
MEAN DAILY DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
o 0 0
1'\ "'!" III
o 0 0
1'\ 7 III
•
l- · · • •
l- .. • • · . · • · · l- . • . · · · • • '.
•• • ...•. • .'.....•.. · · • · · · . . • . . • . • . · · . · · · . .•. .. . . . ·
· . . · • . ·
• .. .
l- • -
. . ·
I • • I •• I I I I . • • .
u • • . .
0
0
0 . •• .• . · • ••• ., • · . · · • . • · • .... · • ...• · . . '. . · .. . . - · . ..... • · ~ · · · • · • · ~ . • · .. .'. . . 0 • . 0 .
· . . • J' . . ~ . · .
0
I I I • I I I I I I .
o
o
w
>
... J o
( f)
( f) 500
... J 400
<>.::
f-
~ .300
L
Q)
+-
200
300
30
500
400
. co z
( f) o
... J
~ I 000
~ OO
E
~ 300
+-
200
o
N
500
400
20
o
N
::: 2." 50
::>
oo 40
( f)
......... 100 en
E
The Salt River System waters vary in qual ity, but not quite as drastically as the
Gila River and its other tributaries. The extensive reservoir systems on the
Salt and Verde Rivers tend to equalize the extremely high and low salt waters.
The TDS of the Salt River below Stewart Nountain Dam has varied from 361 to 1300
mg/ l during the period of 1950 to 1964. The TDS of the Verde River below Bartlett
Dam has varied from 158 to 550 mg/ I during the same period. The quality of water
del ivered to the users in the Salt River Valley depends on how much water is
available from each of the rivers. The ratio varies from year to year as seen in
Exhibit I for Stations 5020 and 5100.
The surface flow of the Salt River System is not sufficient to satisfy the needs
of the Salt River Valley, and there is considerable groundwater pumping. The
amount pumped in the valley greatly exceeds the annual recharge. In addition,
the groundwater is quite saline in most areas. The Central Arizona Project is
desperately needed in this area to allow for water importation. Such importation
would help with respect to both the qual ity and quantity.
The next surface flow in the Gila River is at Gillespie Dam. The TDS load at this
point averages 5,000 to 6,000 mg/ l. This water is diverted for irrigation purposes.
The water usually has a fluoride concentration of 2 to 4 mg/ l.
With the meager amount of qual ity data available in the Gila River System, it is
difficult to isolate any single source of gross degradation of the water. It
appears that much of the degradation is the result of natural sources of sal inity.
Occasional floodwaters and some drain3ge water from agricultural faci Iities reach
the Colorado River near Yuma. The drainage water is now almost completely con­tained
in the concrete lined drainage channel of t, he Wellton- Mohawk Irrigation
and Drainage District. The effect of this drain is seen in the data for U. S. G. S.
Station 5205 ( Dome, Arizona) in Exhibit 1. The flow in the Gila River has de­creased
to less tItan an acre- foot per day since water year 1963. The subject of
salinity below this point of the Gila River is discussed in the Colorado River
Policy Document. It should be pointed out, however, that rate of floodwater re­lease
from Painted Rock Dam can drastically effect the salinity problem in the
lower Gila and Colorado Rivers. Floodwater has been released only once since
completion of the dam in 1959.
- 8-
3- 0 BENEFICIAL WATER USES TO BE PROTECTED
--"'~-"'-"-'-----'-------"-'- ...._-~ -_._.._...
3- 1 General: All surface waters from significant sources in Arizona are subject
to the appropriative rights doctrine. There are no Riparian water rights in
Arizona. The following beneficial water uses are required of waters of the Gila
River System, and the tabulation is not intended to designate order of importance
or rights to such use.
2~ 2 Agricultural: Waters of the entire Gila River System are used for irrigation.
Boron content from natural sources limits the use on some crops. In some cases,
the TDS and Sodium percentage also 1imit crop use.
3- 3 Raw Domestic Water: High fluoride content from natural sources restricts the
useOT" the - GilaRiveras a domestic water source jf alternate sources are avail­abie.
There is some use of surface water of the Gila River 3S a raw domestic
source. Use of the water has resulted in mottled teeth in children, and an alter­nate
source of water is recommended.
The water diverted at Ashurst- Hayden Dam is used for irrigatiun purposes. Domes­tic
w5ter in the San Carlos Project area comes fiom grou;: dwater sources.
Surface water of the Salt River System is extensively used as a raw domestic
source for the metropolitan Phoenix area.
There is negligible direct use of surface water as a raw domestic source below
the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers~
On most of the other tributary streams, the surface flow is so undependable and
variable in quality that domestic wClf'er is supplied from groundwater. Future
supplies in certain areas are dependent upon importation fro~ outside sources.
3- 4 Industrial: Waters are diverted all along the flowing streams for industrial
purposes- 5Uch- as mining, manufacturing and cooling water.
3- 5 Propagation of Fish a~ d Wildlife Resources: The Gila River System contains
a'c( uatlccln" aWTfanfe" resou~~ c- es"- Tri- iiiosi" of' the flowing streams. SIJCh resources
include production of organisms, both plant and animal, thdt contribute to the
food chain supporting a fish population, and populations of other animal life,
including water fowl and shore birds.
3- 6 Recreational: This includes fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, hunt­rng~
and- esthetTc enjoymen7.. Some of these uses are restricted in some areas due
to confl icting water rights and uses, but are generally avnilable in most areas
where flowing or stored water is available.
3- 7 Future Uses of Surface Water: Future consumpt i ve uses of surface water,
other tha- nthose- spec" lft" cailymentioned as allocated, are of necessity restricted
until a water importation project is authorized and built. It is prob